ProEthica Case 16 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.713938
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 15-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

BER Case 17-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 17-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 17-7, the BER determined that an Engineer had an obligation to further report the situation to the appropriate the local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards were consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: In BER Case 17-7, the BER determined that an Engineer had an obligation to further report the situation to the appropriate the local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards were consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's reporting obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers have an obligation to report violations to local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure engineering standards are consistent with public health, safety, and welfare, even when the violation involves a proposed ordinance change
version: Case 17-7
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Case 16 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Continue Practice Post-Stroke
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Cooperate With Improper Arrang
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Delegate Design Beyond Supervi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Privately Confront Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Retain Engineer R for Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Retain Engineer R to Redesign
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

CausalLink_Retain Friend as Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client Instance
type: CivilEngineeringFirmOwnerClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'context': 'Office facility construction project with structural failure', 'relationship': 'Client who retained structural engineering services ultimately reviewed by Engineer R'}
caseinvolvement: The owner of the civil engineering and surveying firm (Engineer B's firm context) whose project triggered the structural failure review and whose interests are implicated in the impaired-practice arrangement, bearing authority over project decisions and obligations to respond appropriately when design failures occur.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'involved_party', 'target': 'Engineer R'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client
sourcetext: Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: engineering design services
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.732457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint - Engineer A Friendship vs. Reporting
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A explicitly chose personal friendship and compassion over the public safety reporting obligation, declining to report Engineer B to the State Board despite knowing of the impaired practice and resulting structural failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: When Engineer A's personal loyalty and friendship to Engineer B conflicted with his obligation to protect public safety by reporting Engineer B's impaired practice to the State Board, the public safety obligation took precedence, constraining Engineer A from allowing friendship to prevent the required report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: From Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's impaired practice and the structural failure
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.723603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation Invoked For Engineer A
type: CompassionatePeerReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision regarding reporting Engineer B to State Board
balancingwith: Personal friendship loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as Engineer B's personal friend, had both the obligation to report Engineer B's impaired practice to the State Board and the legitimate option to do so in a compassionate, cooperative manner that respected their friendship — but the friendship did not exempt Engineer A from the reporting obligation itself
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The friendship created space for compassionate engagement (private confrontation, cooperative reporting, advocacy for alternative solutions) but did not create an exemption from the mandatory reporting obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
tensionresolution: Reporting obligation is mandatory; friendship affects the manner of fulfillment (cooperative, compassionate approach with State Board) but not the existence of the obligation
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board. Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative
textreferences: any of them must begin with the conviction that the ethics code does not permit engineers to turn a blind eye to the unethical practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Compassionate Reporting Pathway - Engineer A Private Confrontation Without Reporting
type: CompassionateReportingPathwayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B as a professional courtesy and confronted him with the faulty design, but then chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board, treating the private confrontation as sufficient discharge of any reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's private confrontation with Engineer B — while consistent with professional courtesy — did not discharge Engineer A's mandatory reporting obligation to the State Board; the compassionate pathway of private discussion was permissible as a supplement to, but not a substitute for, formal reporting, and Engineer A was prohibited from using friendship and compassion as justification for indefinite non-reporting.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's private meeting with Engineer B onward
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.734893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint - Engineer A Cooperative Disclosure
type: CompassionateReportingPathwayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had access to a cooperative, private disclosure pathway — including a confidential discussion with the State Board involving Engineer B's knowledge and approval — that would have fulfilled the reporting obligation while respecting the friendship, but Engineer A did not pursue this pathway.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was permitted to fulfill the mandatory reporting obligation through a compassionate pathway — including privately discussing the matter with the State Board with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, and cooperating with the Board to identify qualified temporary substitutes such as Engineer R — provided that such compassionate framing resulted in actual Board notification and did not suppress or indefinitely defer the required report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections III.7, II.1.f; NSPE Code Section III.7 (non-malicious injury provision)
sourcetext: By this view and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice through the reporting decision
textreferences: By this view and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board.
textreferences: Further, under such a scenario, the Board might exercise discretion relative to formal sanction (or not) of Engineer B.
textreferences: Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint - Engineer A Cooperative Disclosure Option
type: CompassionateReportingPathwayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had access to a cooperative, private disclosure pathway involving Engineer B's knowledge and potential cooperation with the State Board, which could have honored the friendship while still fulfilling the mandatory reporting obligation — but Engineer A chose non-reporting entirely rather than pursuing this pathway.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint
constraintstatement: While Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board, the manner of reporting could be shaped by compassion — including privately discussing the matter with Engineer B and cooperating with the Board to identify practice alternatives such as temporary qualified substitution — provided that such compassionate framing did not delay, suppress, or substitute for the required report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
temporalscope: From discovery of Engineer B's impaired practice through the reporting process
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.721332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Competence Constraint - Engineer B Post-Stroke Structural Design Capacity
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's stroke materially impaired his professional capacity, yet he continued to seal structural engineering documents produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's post-stroke cognitive impairment constituted a competence constraint that limited his ability to exercise genuine responsible charge over structural engineering work, prohibiting him from continuing to practice structural engineering and seal documents until his competence was restored to the level required for independent professional practice.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Professional Competence Standard - Engineer B Post-Stroke Practice; NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Competence Constraint - Engineer B Post-Stroke Structural Practice
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that materially impaired his cognitive and professional functioning, yet continued to operate his structural engineering firm and affix his seal to drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's post-stroke cognitive impairment constituted a competence boundary that prohibited him from continuing to practice structural engineering, as his impairment rendered him unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; Professional Competence Standard; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
textreferences: The BER has not previously examined competence as it relates to mental health; however, the facts in this case make the determination of [non]competence straightforward.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.726318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's failure to report was unethical, Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B — while compassionate in intent — itself carried an ethically problematic dimension. By alerting Engineer B to the findings of Engineer R's review without simultaneously triggering any formal corrective mechanism, Engineer A effectively gave Engineer B advance notice of potential regulatory scrutiny while allowing the impaired practice to continue unabated. This private confrontation did not suspend Engineer B's ability to seal additional drawings, did not protect future clients or the public from Engineer B's ongoing impaired practice, and did not initiate any supervised practice management alternative. The compassionate impulse underlying the private meeting, though understandable, cannot substitute for the formal reporting obligation, and in practical effect it extended the window of public risk rather than closing it. Friendship-based deference, however sincere, does not satisfy the paramount duty to protect public safety.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted unethically by not reporting Engineer B should be extended to recognize that Engineer A bore an independent, antecedent ethical responsibility arising from the retention decision itself. Engineer A retained Engineer B on the basis of personal friendship rather than on the basis of a rigorous, contemporaneous assessment of Engineer B's current professional competence and firm capacity. Had Engineer A conducted even a basic pre-retention due diligence inquiry — such as verifying Engineer B's recent project history, current professional standing, and the staffing capacity of his firm — there is a reasonable probability that warning signs of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment would have surfaced before any design work began. The failure to perform such an assessment is not merely a missed opportunity; it reflects a lapse in the professional judgment expected of an engineer who is also a client retaining a structural engineer for a significant construction project. The ethical obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public applies not only after a failure has occurred but prospectively, at the point of engagement.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically by continuing impaired practice should be extended to address the structural role played by Engineer B's wife in enabling that continuation. By assuming management of the firm with full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and his resulting incapacity to exercise responsible charge, Engineer B's wife became an active participant in a scheme that allowed impaired, effectively unsupervised engineering practice to persist. While Engineer B's wife is not a licensed engineer and therefore cannot be held to the same professional code obligations, her conduct raises a distinct ethical concern: she provided the organizational infrastructure — business management, client-facing continuity, and operational cover — that made it possible for Engineer B to continue sealing drawings he could not meaningfully review. This enabling role materially extended the duration and scope of the public safety risk. The Board's analysis, focused on Engineer B's individual ethical violations, does not fully account for the systemic nature of the arrangement, in which multiple actors each contributed an essential element to the continuation of impaired practice.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.2.b.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's continued practice was unethical should be further extended to address the sign-and-seal conduct specifically. Engineer B's act of affixing his professional seal to drawings he had not meaningfully reviewed is not merely a procedural irregularity — it is a substantive ethical violation independent of his post-stroke impairment. The professional seal is a representation to the public, to building officials, and to contractors that the licensed engineer has exercised responsible charge over the work. By sealing Engineer Intern C's drawings with little to no review, Engineer B converted his seal from a mark of professional accountability into an instrument of deception. This conduct violated the sign-and-seal standard not only technically but in its fundamental purpose. Financial pressure, however genuine, does not constitute a mitigating factor that modifies this obligation, because the harm that flows from falsely sealed documents — as demonstrated by the actual structural failure — falls on third parties who had no role in and no knowledge of Engineer B's financial circumstances.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 4
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's implicit conclusion that Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board should be extended to clarify that this obligation was not contingent on the severity of the harm already realized. The reporting obligation under the Code arises upon acquiring knowledge of a violation, not upon confirmation that harm has already materialized. Engineer A possessed sufficient knowledge to trigger the reporting obligation at the moment he observed the 'odd' structural bracing and retained Engineer R — and certainly no later than the moment Engineer B disclosed his stroke and the nature of the firm's operating arrangement at their private meeting. The fact that a structural failure had already occurred does not transform the reporting obligation into a retrospective one; rather, it underscores that the obligation existed earlier and that its non-fulfillment contributed to the continuation of a practice arrangement that posed ongoing risk to future occupants of the unbuilt portions of the structure. Reporting at the earliest point of knowledge, rather than after private confrontation, would have been the ethically correct course.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 5
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's implicit conclusion that Engineer R was independently obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board should be extended to address the nature and basis of that obligation. Engineer R's reporting duty is not derivative of Engineer A's duty, nor is it contingent on Engineer A's failure to act. Engineer R acquired direct, first-hand professional knowledge of serious structural design errors and omissions through a formal independent engineering review — knowledge that, standing alone, was sufficient to trigger the reporting obligation under the Code. Moreover, Engineer R's status as an independent third-party reviewer, retained precisely because of his professional expertise and standing, reinforces rather than diminishes this obligation: Engineer R's professional judgment was the instrument by which the violations were formally identified and documented. The concern that reporting might injure Engineer B's professional reputation does not constitute a valid countervailing consideration in this context, because the reporting obligation is compelled by direct professional knowledge of actual violations, not by malice or competitive interest. Engineer R's duty to report is therefore non-delegable and independent.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.2.
cited provision4: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions, taken together, do not fully address the ethical position of Engineer Intern C, whose conduct warrants independent analysis. Engineer Intern C was not a passive participant in the arrangement: with full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and resulting incapacity, Intern C actively performed substantive structural design work, produced construction drawings, and allowed those drawings to be sealed by an engineer who was providing little to no review. This conduct implicates at least two independent ethical concerns. First, Intern C was performing structural engineering design work beyond the scope of competence reasonably attributable to a graduate engineer with approximately two years of experience and no licensure, which raises questions about whether Intern C's participation itself constituted a form of unlicensed engineering practice. Second, Intern C's knowing cooperation with an arrangement designed to circumvent the responsible charge requirement — an arrangement Intern C understood was producing drawings that would be falsely sealed — placed Intern C in the position of aiding and abetting a violation of the engineering practice act. The fact that Intern C was directed to perform this work by a nominally supervising licensed engineer does not extinguish Intern C's independent ethical culpability, because the Code's obligations are not suspended by employment hierarchy when the intern possesses actual knowledge that the supervisory arrangement is fraudulent.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_108
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 103
answers question4: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: II.2.
cited provision5: II.2.b.
cited provision6: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 108
conclusion text: Across all of the Board's conclusions, a systemic pattern emerges that the Board's case-by-case analysis does not fully capture: the structural failure was not the product of a single actor's lapse but of a coordinated, multi-party arrangement in which each participant contributed an essential enabling element. Engineer B provided the seal and the licensed identity; Engineer B's wife provided the operational and managerial infrastructure; Engineer Intern C provided the technical labor; and Engineer A, by choosing private confrontation over formal reporting, provided the continued absence of regulatory scrutiny. Each actor's individual ethical failure was a necessary condition for the continuation of the arrangement, and the harm that resulted — an actual structural failure and ongoing risk to future occupants — was the foreseeable consequence of the arrangement as a whole. This systemic dimension suggests that the ethical analysis should not be confined to assessing each actor's individual culpability in isolation, but should also recognize that the Code's provisions — particularly the obligations to hold paramount public safety, to report known violations, and not to aid unlicensed practice — function as a coordinated system of safeguards, any one of which, if honored, would have been sufficient to interrupt the chain of events leading to the failure.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_109
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 109
conclusion text: The role of Engineer B's wife as non-engineer firm manager represents an ethical and legal dimension the Board acknowledged but did not fully develop. By assuming management of the firm with full knowledge of her husband's impairment and the delegation arrangement with Engineer Intern C, Engineer B's wife became an active participant in a structure designed to perpetuate the appearance of licensed engineering practice. While she is not subject to the NSPE Code of Ethics as a non-engineer, her conduct implicates state engineering practice act provisions that prohibit non-engineers from managing or controlling the practice of engineering in ways that circumvent licensure requirements. More significantly, her assumption of management did not merely accommodate Engineer B's medical condition — it enabled the continuation of the unlawful delegation arrangement. The ethical analysis of Engineer B's violations is incomplete without recognizing that the concealment architecture he constructed required her active cooperation to function. This raises the question of whether Engineer B's wife bears independent civil or regulatory liability under state law, even if she falls outside the scope of professional ethics codes.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.582411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_110
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 306
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 110
conclusion text: A consequentialist analysis of the entire fact pattern reveals that the harm produced in this case was not merely the result of Engineer B's individual impairment, but of a systemic failure in which every actor who had knowledge of the improper arrangement — Engineer B, Engineer Intern C, and Engineer B's wife — chose concealment over disclosure, and the one external actor with knowledge — Engineer A — chose private confrontation over formal reporting. The structural failure was therefore not an unforeseeable accident but a predictable outcome of compounding ethical failures across multiple parties. This systemic dimension has practical implications for how the Board's conclusions should be read: the obligation to report is not merely a rule-following exercise but a structural safeguard that exists precisely because individual actors with conflicting interests — financial survival, personal loyalty, power asymmetry — cannot be relied upon to self-correct. Engineer A's reporting obligation was the last external check available in a system where all internal checks had already failed, which is why the Board correctly treated it as non-negotiable despite the sympathetic circumstances.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.582571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A bore a partial but real ethical responsibility for the structural failure by retaining Engineer B on the basis of personal friendship without conducting any independent verification of Engineer B's current competence, professional standing, or firm capacity before the project began. The NSPE Code requires engineers to perform services only in areas of their competence, and by extension, a client-engineer who retains a structural consultant carries an implicit due diligence obligation to confirm that the retained engineer is presently capable of performing the contracted work. Had Engineer A verified Engineer B's recent project history, current firm staffing, or professional standing with the State Board, warning signs of post-stroke impairment or reduced capacity might have surfaced before any design work was produced. The failure to perform even a minimal pre-retention competence check — substituting friendship for professional judgment — contributed to the conditions that made the structural failure possible. This does not transfer Engineer B's primary ethical culpability to Engineer A, but it does establish that Engineer A's own professional obligations were implicated from the moment of retention, not merely after the failure was discovered.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer B's wife incurred a meaningful, if not formally codified, ethical obligation by assuming management of the firm with full knowledge of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment. Although she is not a licensed engineer and therefore not directly bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics, she functioned as the operational enabler of a practice arrangement that posed a direct and ongoing risk to public safety. By actively managing the business — coordinating work flow, client relationships, and firm operations — while knowing that Engineer B could not competently review designs and that Engineer Intern C was performing unsupervised structural work, she became a material participant in the continuation of impaired practice. Her conduct is most accurately characterized as aiding and facilitating the unlawful practice of engineering, even if she herself was not practicing engineering. The ethical framework that prohibits engineers from aiding or abetting unlawful practice reflects a broader public safety norm that applies with moral force to any person who knowingly enables such practice, regardless of licensure status. Her actions extended the period of public risk and contributed directly to the conditions that produced the structural failure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.2.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer Intern C's ethical obligation shifted from deference to affirmative refusal at the point when the intern acquired actual knowledge that Engineer B's stroke had materially impaired his capacity to provide meaningful review of structural design work — which, based on the facts, was before the construction drawings for Engineer A's building were completed and sealed. An intern's deference to a supervising licensed engineer is ethically grounded in the presumption that the licensed engineer is competent and is actually exercising responsible charge. Once that presumption was destroyed by direct knowledge of Engineer B's incapacity and the absence of any substantive review, continued participation in the arrangement was no longer defensible as professional deference. It became complicity. At that threshold, Engineer Intern C was obligated either to refuse to produce structural designs that would be sealed without review, or to report the arrangement to the State Board. The intern's two years of experience and unlicensed status did not relieve this obligation — they reinforced it, because the intern lacked the independent competence to ensure the safety of the work being produced. Continued cooperation, motivated by employment security and career advancement, placed Engineer Intern C in direct ethical violation of the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B, while reflecting genuine personal compassion, functionally operated as a form of advance warning that allowed the impaired practice to continue without triggering any formal corrective mechanism. By disclosing Engineer R's findings to Engineer B privately and then declining to report to the State Board, Engineer A created a situation in which Engineer B had full knowledge that his design failures had been discovered, yet faced no formal accountability. This arrangement did not protect the public — it protected Engineer B from consequences while leaving open the possibility that Engineer B's firm would continue to produce deficient work for other clients. The private confrontation approach, absent any follow-through with the State Board, extended rather than curtailed the period of public risk. While the Code does not prohibit private professional dialogue, it cannot substitute for the reporting obligation that Code provision II.1.f. imposes when an engineer has knowledge of a violation. Engineer A's choice to treat private confrontation as a sufficient response reflects a rationalization in which personal loyalty was permitted to override the paramount obligation to public safety — a substitution the Board correctly identified as unethical.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the prohibition against maliciously injuring a colleague's professional reputation resolves clearly in favor of the public safety obligation when the reporting engineer possesses direct, verified knowledge of a violation that has already caused actual harm. Code provision III.7. prohibits malicious or false injury to a colleague's reputation — it does not prohibit truthful, good-faith reporting of known violations to the appropriate authority. The qualifier 'maliciously or falsely' is dispositive: a report grounded in direct professional knowledge of design failures that produced a structural collapse is neither malicious nor false. Engineer A's reluctance to report Engineer B conflated the act of reporting with the act of injuring, when in fact the injury to Engineer B's reputation would flow from Engineer B's own conduct, not from Engineer A's disclosure. The Code's hierarchy is unambiguous — public safety is paramount and appears as the first obligation in Section I. Reputational protection for a colleague is a secondary consideration that cannot override a primary duty, particularly when the colleague's conduct has already materialized into physical harm and ongoing risk to future occupants of unbuilt portions of the structure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.701951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: Financial hardship does not constitute a legitimate mitigating factor that modifies or suspends the ethical duty to cease impaired practice. The Code's obligation to perform services only in areas of competence and to conform with state registration laws is not conditioned on the financial consequences of compliance. Engineer B's situation — being the sole licensed engineer in a small firm, facing loss of income, and having family financial obligations — is genuinely sympathetic, but the Code does not recognize financial survival as a defense to practicing beyond one's competence or to sealing documents without meaningful review. The reason this standard must be absolute is structural: if financial pressure were accepted as a mitigating factor, the public safety protections embedded in licensure requirements would be systematically eroded in precisely the circumstances — small firms, sole practitioners, economic downturns — where impaired or incompetent practice is most likely to occur and least likely to be detected. Engineer B's ethical obligation upon suffering a stroke that materially impaired his professional capacity was to suspend practice, seek a formal practice management arrangement, or refer his clients to competent practitioners — not to continue operating while delegating substantive design work to an unlicensed intern.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: Engineer R's reporting obligation to the State Board does not conflict with the prohibition against maliciously injuring a colleague's reputation, because Engineer R's knowledge was acquired through a formal, arms-length professional engagement rather than through rumor, inference, or competitive animus. Engineer R was retained as an independent structural reviewer, produced a documented technical assessment of serious design errors and omissions, and subsequently redesigned the structure — all of which constitutes direct professional knowledge of violations within the meaning of Code provision II.1.f. The reporting obligation that provision imposes is triggered by knowledge, not by intent, and it applies independently to each engineer who possesses that knowledge. Engineer R therefore carried an independent, non-delegable duty to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board, regardless of what Engineer A chose to do. The fact that reporting would cause reputational and financial harm to Engineer B does not transform a good-faith, knowledge-based report into a malicious act. Engineer R's obligation was further reinforced by the discovery that the design errors extended beyond the failed basement to unbuilt portions of the structure, meaning that future public safety remained at risk absent formal intervention.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill his categorical duty to protect public safety. Deontological ethics — particularly in the Kantian tradition — holds that duties are binding regardless of consequences and regardless of the personal costs of compliance. The duty to report a known violation to the appropriate authority, as codified in Code provision II.1.f., is not a discretionary guideline that yields to personal loyalty or compassionate circumstance. It is a categorical obligation grounded in the engineer's role as a trustee of public safety. Engineer A's decision to substitute private confrontation for formal reporting cannot be justified deontologically, because the maxim underlying that decision — 'I will protect a friend from professional consequences even when his conduct poses ongoing risk to the public' — cannot be universalized without destroying the entire system of professional accountability that licensure is designed to create. The compassionate circumstances surrounding Engineer B's stroke are morally relevant to how Engineer A might have supported Engineer B through the reporting process, but they are not morally relevant to whether the reporting obligation existed or whether it was binding.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer B's decision to continue practice after his stroke produced net harm that substantially outweighed any benefit to his firm, his employees, or his clients. The benefits of continuation were primarily private — preservation of Engineer B's income, maintenance of his firm's client relationships, and continued employment for Engineer Intern C and other staff. The harms were public and material: an actual structural failure during construction of Engineer A's building, serious design errors in unbuilt portions of the same structure that posed ongoing risk to future occupants, and the broader systemic harm of demonstrating that a licensed engineer could continue to seal documents without review while impaired, undermining public confidence in the licensure system. A rigorous consequentialist analysis would also account for the foreseeable downstream harms: the financial and legal exposure Engineer A faced as a result of the failure, the risk to construction workers and future building occupants, and the professional harm to Engineer Intern C from participation in an arrangement that exposed the intern to ethical and legal liability. The financial survival rationale Engineer B employed was a form of motivated reasoning that weighted private benefits to himself and his firm against diffuse public harms — precisely the kind of calculation that professional ethics codes are designed to override.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer Intern C failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of an emerging engineer. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct by reference to the character traits — honesty, courage, prudence, integrity — that a person of good professional character would exhibit. An emerging engineer of good character, upon discovering that the licensed engineer nominally supervising his work was incapable of providing meaningful review, would have recognized that continuing to produce structural designs under those conditions was not a morally neutral act of professional compliance but an active contribution to a deceptive and dangerous arrangement. The virtuous response would have been to refuse participation, to seek guidance from the State Board or a professional ethics resource, or at minimum to document objections formally. Engineer Intern C's choice to cooperate — with full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and the absence of substantive review — reflects a prioritization of employment security and career continuity over the foundational professional virtue of integrity. The fact that the intern lacked the power to compel Engineer B to cease practice does not eliminate the intern's own ethical agency. Moral courage, as a professional virtue, requires acting rightly even when the personal cost is significant.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer R's status as an independent third-party reviewer created a distinct, non-delegable duty to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board, independent of whatever action Engineer A chose to take. The reporting obligation in Code provision II.1.f. is personal and non-transferable — it attaches to each engineer who acquires knowledge of a violation through their professional activities, and it cannot be discharged by relying on another engineer to report. Engineer R acquired direct, documented, professional knowledge of serious violations through a formal engagement: multiple structural design errors and omissions, evidence of drawings sealed without competent review, and a pattern of conduct consistent with impaired practice. That knowledge created an independent obligation that was not contingent on Engineer A's decision. The deontological force of this obligation is reinforced by Engineer R's role: as an independent reviewer retained precisely to assess the integrity of the structural design, Engineer R occupied a position of heightened professional responsibility. To complete the technical review, redesign the structure, and then remain silent about the systemic violations that caused the failure would be to treat the reporting obligation as optional — a characterization the Code does not support.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Had Engineer A immediately reported Engineer B to the State Board upon discovering the structural failure and the anomalous bracing — before the private confrontation — the Board's formal intervention would likely have created a faster and more reliable pathway to a supervised practice management alternative than the private confrontation approach actually produced. State boards typically have mechanisms to address impaired practitioners that include supervised practice arrangements, temporary license restrictions, and referrals to professional assistance programs. These mechanisms are designed precisely for situations where a licensed engineer's capacity is compromised but where an abrupt firm closure would cause disproportionate harm. By choosing private confrontation first, Engineer A allowed Engineer B to retain control of the narrative, gave Engineer B the opportunity to continue operating without formal oversight, and produced no binding corrective outcome. The private confrontation approach was not merely less effective than formal reporting — it was structurally incapable of producing the kind of enforceable, supervised practice arrangement that could have protected both the public and Engineer B's firm. The counterfactual strongly suggests that immediate reporting, potentially accompanied by Engineer A's offer to assist Engineer B in navigating the Board process, would have been both more ethical and more practically beneficial.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.2.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q402: Had Engineer Intern C refused to perform unsupervised structural design work, or independently reported Engineer B's impaired condition to the State Board, the structural failure of Engineer A's building basement would very likely have been prevented, because the deficient design that caused the failure was produced by Engineer Intern C under conditions of no meaningful supervision. The causal chain runs directly from the intern's cooperation with the impaired practice arrangement to the production of deficient drawings to the structural failure. Refusal or reporting by the intern would have broken that chain at its earliest point. Additionally, Engineer Intern C's own professional trajectory would have been substantially protected: by cooperating with the arrangement, the intern became complicit in unlicensed practice, exposed himself or herself to disciplinary action by the State Board, and accumulated professional experience under conditions that could not be credited toward licensure in any jurisdiction that requires supervised experience. The counterfactual also illustrates a broader principle: interns and junior engineers are not ethically or legally insulated from the consequences of participating in arrangements they know to be improper simply because they lack the power to compel compliance from a superior. The intern's ethical agency was real, and the failure to exercise it carried real consequences.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Had Engineer B voluntarily disclosed his stroke to the State Board immediately after suffering it, sought a formal temporary practice management arrangement, and placed Engineer Intern C's work under the supervision of a qualified licensed structural engineer, it is plausible that Engineer B could have preserved his firm's viability while remaining in compliance with his ethical and legal obligations. Many state boards have provisions for supervised practice arrangements that allow impaired or temporarily incapacitated licensees to continue operating under defined conditions, including third-party technical oversight. Such an arrangement would have addressed the core public safety problem — the absence of competent review of structural designs — while allowing the firm to continue generating revenue and maintaining client relationships. The structural failure of Engineer A's building, the reputational and financial harm to Engineer B's firm, the legal exposure for all parties, and the professional harm to Engineer Intern C were all foreseeable consequences of the concealment strategy Engineer B chose. Voluntary disclosure, while carrying short-term costs, would have been both ethically required and practically superior to the concealment approach. This counterfactual underscores that the ethical path and the strategically rational path were aligned — Engineer B's choice to conceal was not only wrong but also self-defeating.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q404: Engineer A's failure to conduct a meaningful pre-retention competence assessment of Engineer B carries an independent ethical dimension that the Board did not explicitly address. The obligation to perform services only in areas of competence — and the corollary obligation to retain consultants who are competent to perform the work assigned — implies that a retaining engineer exercises some degree of professional judgment in selecting consultants, not merely administrative convenience or personal familiarity. Engineer A's retention of Engineer B was driven primarily by friendship rather than by any documented assessment of Engineer B's current capacity, recent project history, or firm staffing. A more rigorous pre-retention inquiry — such as verifying Engineer B's professional standing with the State Board, reviewing recent comparable projects, or assessing the firm's current staffing and supervision arrangements — might have surfaced warning signs of post-stroke impairment before any design work was produced. While the primary ethical culpability for the structural failure rests with Engineer B and Engineer Intern C, Engineer A's substitution of personal trust for professional due diligence represents a failure of the professional judgment that the Code expects of a licensed engineer acting in a client capacity. This conclusion does not diminish Engineer A's victimhood in the structural failure, but it does establish that Engineer A's ethical obligations were implicated at the point of retention, not merely after the failure occurred.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: Each engineer with direct knowledge of Engineer B's violations bears a non-transferable, independent reporting obligation that cannot be satisfied by another party's report. The Code provision requiring engineers with knowledge of violations to report to appropriate authorities is framed in terms of individual knowledge and individual obligation — it does not contain a first-reporter exception or a coordination requirement that would allow one engineer's report to discharge another's duty. Engineer R's independent reporting obligation therefore exists in parallel with Engineer A's, not in sequence behind it. Furthermore, the value of multiple independent reports to the State Board is not merely additive — it is qualitatively significant: corroborating reports from independent sources strengthen the evidentiary basis for regulatory action, reduce the risk that a single report will be dismissed or minimized, and signal to the Board that the violations are serious and widely recognized within the professional community. The Board's conclusion that both Engineer A and Engineer R were independently obligated to report is therefore not only correct as a matter of code interpretation but also sound as a matter of regulatory effectiveness.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.583101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_217
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 217
conclusion text: In response to Q204: Delegating firm management to a non-engineer spouse cannot be construed as a permissible administrative accommodation that supports cessation of engineering practice — it inevitably enables continued unlawful practice regardless of intent. The distinction between administrative management and engineering practice management is critical but was obliterated in this case. A non-engineer spouse managing billing, scheduling, and client communications would raise no ethical concern. But Engineer B's wife assumed management of the firm in a context where the firm's sole licensed engineer was incapacitated, where an unlicensed intern was performing all substantive design work, and where the firm was continuing to accept and execute structural engineering commissions. In that context, her management role was not administrative — it was operational enablement of unlicensed engineering practice. The Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition exists precisely to prevent this outcome: non-engineers lack the professional judgment to recognize when engineering work exceeds the competence of those performing it, and their management of engineering firms therefore removes the last internal check on quality and safety. Engineer B's delegation to his wife, far from being a compassionate accommodation, was a structural mechanism for perpetuating the violations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.583185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_218
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 218
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer R had reported Engineer B to the State Board upon completing his independent structural review — without waiting for Engineer A to act — that action would have been ethically required and would not have eliminated Engineer A's own independent reporting obligation. Engineer R's reporting obligation arises from his direct expert knowledge of Engineer B's design failures and is non-delegable: it runs to the public and the profession, not to Engineer A as the client who retained him. Had Engineer R reported independently, Engineer A's obligation to report would have remained in force because Engineer A possessed independent knowledge of the situation — including Engineer B's disclosure of his stroke and the practice arrangement with Engineer Intern C — that Engineer R did not have. The two reporting obligations are parallel and cumulative, not sequential or substitutable. Engineer R's independent reporting would have protected the public more quickly and would have modeled the profession's expectation that engineers with direct knowledge of violations act without waiting for others to take the lead. It would not, however, have absolved Engineer A of his own obligation, because the code's reporting requirement is personal and cannot be discharged by another engineer's action.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:30:39.261028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 4
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most fundamental tension in this case — between holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the prohibition against maliciously injuring a colleague's professional reputation — was resolved by the Board in favor of public safety without qualification. The Board treated these two principles not as genuinely competing equals but as occupying different tiers of ethical priority: the duty to report an impaired engineer to the State Board is compelled by direct professional knowledge of ongoing public risk, not by malice, and therefore the reputational harm that flows from a good-faith report to a regulatory authority cannot be characterized as the kind of injurious conduct that Code provision III.7 was designed to prohibit. This case teaches that III.7 functions as a constraint on gratuitous or bad-faith attacks on a colleague's standing, not as a shield that insulates an impaired licensee from mandatory reporting obligations triggered by Code provision II.1.f. When the two provisions are read together, the duty to report under II.1.f. is the operative rule in circumstances of known public risk, and III.7 recedes to its proper role of prohibiting only malicious or false injury. Engineer A's invocation of friendship and compassion as reasons not to report did not transform the reporting obligation into a malicious act; it simply deferred a mandatory duty at the continued expense of public safety.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle that engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence, read in conjunction with the sign-and-seal requirement and the paramount duty to protect public safety, creates a cascading hierarchy of obligations that this case demonstrates cannot be suspended by financial hardship. Engineer B's post-stroke impairment did not merely create a personal incapacity; it triggered an affirmative legal and ethical duty to suspend practice or arrange qualified supervision, because the competence standard under Code provision II.2 is not a sliding scale modulated by economic circumstance. The case makes explicit that financial pressure — however genuine and sympathetic — is not a recognized mitigating factor that modifies the duty to suspend impaired practice. This is a significant doctrinal clarification: the Code's competence obligation is categorical, not contextual. The corollary is equally important: Code provision II.2.b., which prohibits affixing a seal to documents dealing with subject matter in which the engineer is not competent, was violated not merely because Engineer B lacked post-stroke capacity, but because the seal affixed without meaningful review transformed a nominal compliance gesture into an active misrepresentation to the public and to regulatory authorities that competent engineering oversight had occurred. Financial survival cannot convert a prohibited act into a permissible one.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.702871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: This case reveals that the principle prohibiting engineers from aiding or abetting unlawful practice — Code provision II.1.e. — operates simultaneously at multiple levels of the professional hierarchy and cannot be discharged by any single actor's compliance alone. Engineer Intern C's active cooperation with an arrangement the intern knew to be improper constitutes aiding unlawful practice regardless of the intern's unlicensed status, because the prohibition attaches to the conduct of assisting, not to the licensure status of the assistant. Engineer B's wife's assumption of non-engineering firm management, with full knowledge of Engineer B's impairment, similarly enabled the continuation of a practice that posed public risk, even though she bore no engineering license herself. Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B, while not itself a violation, functioned in practice as a form of passive enablement by substituting a collegial warning for the formal regulatory intervention that Code provision II.1.f. required. Taken together, these overlapping failures demonstrate that the ethical architecture of the Code is designed to create redundant reporting and refusal obligations precisely because any single actor's silence or inaction can be compensated for by another's compliance — but in this case, every actor with knowledge chose accommodation over obligation, and the structural failure was the result. The case therefore teaches that the principle of public safety paramountcy is not self-executing; it depends on each informed actor independently discharging their own non-delegable duty.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
cited provision4: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The interaction between Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition and Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation reveals that the two principles, when applied simultaneously, produce a structural paradox that Engineer B's arrangement failed to resolve ethically. Engineer B faced a genuine dilemma: ceasing practice entirely would satisfy the Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation but would financially devastate his firm and family, while delegating management to his wife and design to Engineer Intern C appeared to offer a middle path. However, the Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition forecloses the middle path because it prohibits precisely the arrangement Engineer B constructed — a non-engineer managing a firm whose engineering work is being performed by an unlicensed intern under a licensed engineer's seal without adequate review. The case teaches that these two principles do not conflict in a way that permits compromise: the Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation demands cessation of engineering practice, not merely cessation of personal design work, when the licensed engineer cannot exercise responsible charge. Delegating firm management to a non-engineer spouse does not satisfy the cessation obligation — it merely redistributes the administrative burden while leaving the engineering liability and public safety risk intact. The only ethically compliant resolution would have been either genuine cessation of the firm's engineering practice or retention of a qualified licensed engineer to assume responsible charge in Engineer B's place.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.583664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 5
answers question3: 4
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The case establishes a principle of non-transferable, concurrent reporting obligations that applies independently to each engineer who acquires direct knowledge of an ethical violation, regardless of whether another engineer with the same knowledge has already reported or intends to report. Engineer A and Engineer R each acquired direct, independent knowledge of Engineer B's impaired practice and deficient work — Engineer A through private confrontation and disclosure, Engineer R through independent structural review. The Board's conclusion that both were obligated to report reflects the principle that the public safety rationale for reporting is not diminished by the existence of another potential reporter. This principle has a deeper implication: the reporting obligation is not merely instrumental (aimed at achieving the outcome of a State Board investigation) but is also expressive of each engineer's individual professional accountability to the public. An engineer who relies on another engineer's anticipated report to justify personal silence is not merely taking a calculated risk that the report will be made — that engineer is abdicating a personal professional duty that exists independently of what others do. The case thus teaches that the duty to report impaired practice is non-delegable, non-transferable, and not discharged by another party's action or anticipated action.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.583757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_4
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 4
conclusion number: 4
conclusion text: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Conclusion_5
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 5
conclusion number: 5
conclusion text: Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Concurrent Discovering Engineer Coordinated Reporting Constraint - Engineer R Concurrence
type: ConcurrentDiscoveringEngineerCoordinatedReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R discovered Engineer B's incompetent design documents and was informed of the circumstances of Engineer B's impaired practice; Engineer A, who retained Engineer R, was in a position to take the lead in reporting, potentially allowing Engineer R to concur in that report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Concurrent Discovering Engineer Coordinated Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R's independent obligation to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board could be discharged through formal concurrence in Engineer A's report if Engineer A took the lead in reporting — with the report styled to note Engineer R's concurrence — but Engineer R was prohibited from treating Engineer A's anticipated report as a complete substitute for independent action, and was required to independently report if Engineer A failed to do so.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.f
sourcetext: Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer R's discovery of Engineer B's violations through the reporting decision
textreferences: Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
textreferences: Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Continue Practice Post-Stroke
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Continue Practice Post-Stroke (Action 2) → Drawings Sealed Without Review (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Cooperate With Improper Arrangement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Cooperate With Improper Arrangement (Action 4) → Serious Design Errors Revealed (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Cooperative Disclosure Pathway Available - Engineer A State Board Reporting
type: CompassionateReportingPathwayConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case facts indicate that Engineer A had a cooperative disclosure pathway available through the State Board that could have accommodated compassionate considerations while still fulfilling the reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A had access to a cooperative, compassionate reporting pathway — including privately discussing the matter with Engineer B and cooperating with the State Board to identify practice alternatives — that could have honored both the mandatory reporting obligation and Engineer A's compassion for Engineer B's circumstances, but this pathway did not relieve Engineer A of the underlying obligation to report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's impaired practice
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.735052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A formally report Engineer B to the State Board, or limit his response to a private confrontation out of friendship and compassion for Engineer B's post-stroke condition?
focus: Following the basement structural failure, Engineer A discovers through Engineer R's independent review that Engineer B's design work contains serious errors not only in the failed portion but also in unbuilt portions of the structure. Engineer A must decide how to respond to this confirmed evidence of impaired practice by his long-time friend and structural consultant.
option1: Report Engineer B to the State Board immediately upon confirmation of serious design errors, disclosing Engineer R's findings and the materialized structural failure to the proper authority
option2: Meet privately with Engineer B to confront him with the faulty design and Engineer R's report, relying on personal intervention without filing a formal report to the State Board
option3: Retain Engineer R to redesign the unbuilt portions and proceed with corrected construction without reporting Engineer B to any authority, treating remediation as sufficient response
role label: Engineer A — Client/Retaining Engineer with Knowledge of Impaired Practice
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Is Engineer R obligated to report Engineer B's deficient design work to the State Board independently of Engineer A's actions, or is his obligation satisfied by delivering his findings to Engineer A as the retaining client?
focus: Engineer R, retained first to investigate the basement failure and then to redesign the unbuilt portions, discovers through independent review a surprising number of serious structural design errors and omissions in both the failed and unbuilt portions of the structure. As a licensed professional engineer with direct knowledge of these deficiencies, Engineer R must decide what obligations his findings trigger beyond his contractual role.
option1: Report Engineer B's serious design errors and omissions directly to the State Board as an independent professional obligation arising from the third-party discovery of public safety risk
option2: Deliver findings exclusively to Engineer A as the retaining client and proceed with redesign work, treating the client relationship as the boundary of reporting responsibility
option3: Notify Engineer A of the findings, recommend that Engineer A report to the State Board, and condition continued engagement on confirmation that proper reporting has occurred
role label: Engineer R — Independent Third-Party Reviewer with Direct Knowledge of Design Deficiencies
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer B cease structural engineering practice upon recognizing that his post-stroke condition prevents him from competently performing engineering design and providing responsible charge supervision, or continue practice by delegating to Engineer Intern C and sealing the resulting work?
focus: Engineer B suffers a stroke that materially impairs his cognitive capacity. Despite this impairment, financial pressures drive him to continue practicing structural engineering. He delegates substantive structural design work to Engineer Intern C with little to no meaningful review, then affixes his professional seal to drawings he has not competently reviewed, effectively certifying work he cannot verify.
option1: Cease structural engineering practice upon recognizing cognitive impairment, wind down active projects responsibly, and disclose the impairment to clients and the State Board
option2: Continue practice by delegating substantive design to Engineer Intern C and sealing drawings without competent review, relying on the intern's work to sustain the firm financially
option3: Reduce scope of practice to work within demonstrated post-stroke capacity, seek formal competency evaluation, and decline projects requiring cognitive demands beyond current capability
role label: Engineer B — Licensed Structural Engineer with Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Upon noticing questionable structural details in Engineer B's work and knowing of Engineer B's post-stroke condition, should Engineer A independently verify Engineer B's current competence before the structural failure occurs, or defer to the friendship relationship and Engineer B's continued licensure as sufficient assurance of competence?
focus: Engineer A, as the retaining client who selected Engineer B as structural consultant, had prior awareness that Engineer B had suffered a stroke and noticed 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details in Engineer B's work before the basement failure occurred. Engineer A must decide whether his pre-failure observations trigger an independent obligation to verify Engineer B's current competence.
option1: Independently verify Engineer B's current competence and capacity by commissioning a review of structural work upon noticing questionable details, before any structural failure occurs
option2: Retain Engineer B without independent competence verification, relying on longstanding friendship and continued licensure as sufficient basis for confidence in Engineer B's work
option3: Raise concerns about the questionable structural details directly with Engineer B and require written confirmation of design rationale before allowing construction to proceed
role label: Engineer A — Retaining Client Engineer with Pre-Failure Knowledge of Questionable Details
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer Intern C refuse to perform substantive structural design work under an arrangement where the supervising licensed engineer cannot provide meaningful review due to cognitive impairment, or cooperate with the arrangement in deference to Engineer B's licensed authority?
focus: Engineer Intern C, an unlicensed engineering intern, is asked by Engineer B to perform substantive structural design work with full knowledge that Engineer B's post-stroke impairment prevents meaningful supervision or review. Engineer Intern C must decide whether to cooperate with this arrangement or refuse participation and potentially report the situation.
option1: Refuse to perform substantive structural design work under the impaired supervision arrangement and report the situation to the State Board or another responsible authority
option2: Cooperate with the arrangement by performing substantive structural design with full knowledge that Engineer B cannot competently review or verify the work before sealing it
option3: Perform only clearly defined, limited technical tasks within demonstrably supervised scope while refusing to accept responsibility for substantive design decisions that require licensed judgment
role label: Engineer Intern C — Unlicensed Engineering Intern with Knowledge of Supervising Engineer's Incapacity
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Upon completing his independent structural review and discovering serious design errors attributable to Engineer B's impaired practice, did Engineer R bear a distinct and non-delegable obligation to report Engineer B to the State Board independently of whatever action Engineer A chose to take?
focus: Engineer R's independent reporting obligation upon discovering serious design errors through formal structural review
option1: Report Engineer B's impaired practice and the documented design errors to the State Board independently upon completing the structural review, without conditioning that report on Engineer A's prior action or consent
option2: Notify Engineer A of the obligation to report and allow Engineer A a defined period to initiate reporting to the State Board before Engineer R files an independent report, treating coordinated disclosure as the preferred pathway while preserving the independent reporting option as a backstop
option3: Limit Engineer R's professional response to completing the technical redesign and documenting the findings in the project record, treating the reporting decision as Engineer A's responsibility as the retaining client and primary party with knowledge of Engineer B's impairment
role label: Engineer R
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:30:39.263617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Delegate Design Beyond Supervision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Delegate Design Beyond Supervision (Action 3) → Structural Failure Occurs (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Drawings Sealed Without Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Education-Experience Competence Threshold - Engineer Intern C Structural Design
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C, with only about two years of experience and no licensure, performed all structural design and construction drawings for Engineer A's office building without meaningful supervision, resulting in serious design errors and structural failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, as a graduate engineer with approximately two years of experience and no professional licensure, lacked the education-experience competence threshold required to independently perform structural design and produce construction drawings without meaningful supervision from a licensed professional engineer, and was prohibited from accepting sole design responsibility for structural work of the complexity involved in Engineer A's office building.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard; Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's independent structural design work
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.693861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint - Engineer Intern C Structural Design
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B delegated practically all structural design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer with only about two years of experience, without meaningful review or supervision, resulting in serious structural design errors and actual structural failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, with approximately two years of experience and no professional licensure, lacked the competence threshold required to independently perform substantive structural design and produce construction drawings without meaningful licensed supervision — the assignment of sole design responsibility to Engineer Intern C exceeded the competence boundary established by professional norms for unlicensed graduate engineers.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard; Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's unsupervised structural design work
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.723785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client
type: CivilEngineeringFirmOwnerClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Civil engineering and surveying', 'firm_ownership': True, 'relationship_to_engineer_b': 'Personal friend and professional acquaintance'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A owns a civil engineering and surveying firm, commissioned construction of a new office building, retained Engineer B for structural design, observed the structural failure, retained Engineer R for independent review and redesign, confronted Engineer B privately, and ultimately chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_friend', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client
sourcetext: Engineer A owns a consulting engineering firm specializing in civil engineering and surveying services
textreferences: Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: Engineer A owns a consulting engineering firm specializing in civil engineering and surveying services
textreferences: Engineer A purchased land for a new office building, he retained an architect, and he retained Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.715412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with Engineer B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's retention of Engineer B through the structural failure and termination of the engagement
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with Engineer B as a retained structural engineering consultant for the office building project
terminatedby: Structural failure and Engineer A's retention of Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
triggeringevent: Engineer A's retention of Engineer B to perform structural design for the new office building
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Concern Response
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised collegial concern response capability by retaining Engineer R to independently review the structural drawings and failed construction, taking the concern seriously and initiating a professional investigative response
casecontext: Engineer A commissioned an independent structural review upon discovering problems with Engineer B's work, demonstrating appropriate collegial concern response
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Retained Engineer R, a well-respected structural engineer, to independently review the structural drawings and failed construction upon discovering potential problems with Engineer B's work
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R, described as a well-respected structural engineer, was retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed construction
textreferences: Engineer R, described as a well-respected structural engineer, was retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed construction
textreferences: Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Concern Response Structural Failure
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated partial collegial concern response capability by privately confronting Engineer B with the faulty design and Engineer R's report, but failed to complete the full professional response by reporting to the State Board
casecontext: Engineer A responded to the structural failure by privately confronting Engineer B but did not fulfill the full professional reporting obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Meeting privately with Engineer B as a professional courtesy to confront him with the faulty design and Engineer R's findings, while stopping short of formal reporting
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
type: CompassionatePeerReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'relationship_to_impaired_engineer': 'Long-time personal friend', 'action_taken': 'Private confrontation only; no board report filed'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A, upon discovering Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failures, chose to confront Engineer B privately as a professional courtesy and personal friend, but ultimately did not report Engineer B to the State Board, raising questions about whether this satisfies his professional obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_friend', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_obligation_toward', 'target': 'State Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation Recognition
type: CompassionatePeerReportingObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that his professional obligation to report Engineer B's impaired practice to the State Board persisted despite their personal friendship and his compassionate private confrontation, allowing personal loyalty to substitute for mandatory professional reporting
casecontext: Engineer A privately confronted Engineer B but did not report him to the State Board due to personal friendship and compassion
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Choosing not to report Engineer B to the State Board because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, despite having confirmed evidence of serious structural design failures
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Cooperative Disclosure Pathway Available
type: CooperativeDisclosurePathwayAvailableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A became aware of Engineer B's violations through the conclusion of the case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
stateclass: Cooperative Disclosure Pathway Available State
subject: Engineer A's access to a cooperative, private disclosure pathway — such as a confidential discussion with the State Board involving Engineer B's knowledge — that could satisfy the reporting obligation while minimizing harm to Engineer B's professional standing
terminatedby: Not utilized — Engineer A elected not to report at all
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
triggeringevent: Engineer A's private confrontation with Engineer B and Engineer B's acknowledgment of his impairment and delegation practices, opening the possibility of a cooperative reporting pathway
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Cooperative Practice Alternative Identification Instance
type: CooperativePracticeAlternativeIdentificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The NSPE BER noted that Engineer A's friendship with Engineer B, while not justifying non-reporting, warranted consideration in how the reporting was carried out — specifically, that Engineer A could have worked with Engineer B to identify a compliant practice alternative and presented that to the Board, potentially influencing the Board's exercise of discretion regarding formal sanction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Cooperative Practice Alternative Identification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as Engineer B's personal friend and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, was permitted — and encouraged — to cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative (such as engaging Engineer R as a temporary licensed engineer) when reporting Engineer B to the State Board, so that the reporting obligation was fulfilled without unnecessarily destroying Engineer B's practice.
sourcetext: As Engineer B's friend and with Engineer B's approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B's business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.
temporalscope: Contemporaneous with or immediately following the required report to the State Board
textreferences: As Engineer B's friend and with Engineer B's approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B's business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.
textreferences: Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical Perception Structural Anomaly
type: EthicalPerception
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Perception
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated ethical perception capability by noticing what he believed was odd structural bracing and other questionable structural details during observation of the failed system, triggering his decision to obtain an independent review
casecontext: Engineer A's observation of the failed structure and recognition of anomalous details led him to retain Engineer R for independent review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Observing the failed basement structure and recognizing ethically and technically salient features — odd structural bracing and questionable structural details — that warranted independent expert review
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A noticed what he believed was 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details
textreferences: Engineer A noticed what he believed was 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details
textreferences: To obtain a second opinion about the failure, Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization
type: Friendship-BasedNon-ReportingRationalizationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's private confrontation with Engineer B onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
stateclass: Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization State
subject: Engineer A's use of personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical circumstances as justification for not reporting Engineer B's violations to the State Board
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A elected not to report
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to treat personal friendship and Engineer B's post-stroke circumstances as ethical justification for non-reporting
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Friendship Constrained Reporting Pathway Navigation
type: Friendship-ConstrainedReportingPathwayNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Friendship-Constrained Reporting Pathway Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to exercise the capability to identify reporting pathways that simultaneously fulfill mandatory reporting obligations and respect the professional relationship with Engineer B — including cooperative, non-malicious approaches involving private discussion with state board authorities with Engineer B's knowledge and approval
casecontext: The case identifies a cooperative reporting pathway that would have fulfilled Engineer A's mandatory obligations while respecting the friendship with Engineer B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Case analysis identifies that Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with state board authorities with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, potentially identifying practice alternatives while fulfilling mandatory reporting obligations
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: By this view and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board
textreferences: By this view and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board
textreferences: Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty
textreferences: any of them must begin with the conviction that the ethics code does not permit engineers to turn a blind eye to the unethical practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Friendship Non-Justification Non-Reporting Violation
type: CompassionatePeerReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered through Engineer R's independent review that Engineer B had been signing and sealing structural drawings without competent review while impaired by a stroke, resulting in serious structural failures. Despite this knowledge, Engineer A chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board out of personal friendship and compassion.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B's impaired and unlawful engineering practice to the State Board notwithstanding their personal friendship, and his failure to do so constituted an ethical violation under NSPE II.1.f and III.7.
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's impaired practice and Engineer R's findings
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
textreferences: It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Impaired Licensee Friendship Non-Reporting
type: ImpairedLicenseeFriendshipNon-ReportingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's private confrontation with Engineer B through the conclusion of the case (no report filed)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
stateclass: Impaired Licensee Friendship Non-Reporting State
subject: Engineer A's decision not to report Engineer B to the State Board despite discovering Engineer B's impaired practice, deficient design, and the resulting structural failure
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A elected not to report
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report
triggeringevent: Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment, delegation to Engineer Intern C, and resulting structural failure — followed by Engineer A's decision not to report based on long friendship and compassion
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Impaired Practice State Board Reporting Obligation Instance
type: ImpairedEngineerStateBoardReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer with direct knowledge of Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failures, was required under NSPE II.1.f and III.7 to report the violations to the State Board.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Impaired Engineer State Board Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B's impaired practice to the State Board upon gaining knowledge of the violation through Engineer R's independent review findings.
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer R's report confirming serious structural design errors and Engineer B's disclosure of his stroke and impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Code Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action, unambiguously requires that such violations be reported to the appropriate professional body, in this case the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Post-Discovery Obligation Instance
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, upon learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement through Engineer R's report and Engineer B's own disclosure, chose not to report the violations to the State Board out of personal friendship — thereby permitting the continuation of unlawful engineering practice.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from aiding or abetting the continuation of Engineer B's unlawful engineering practice by declining to report it to the State Board, recognizing that non-reporting of known unlawful practice constitutes a form of facilitation of that practice.
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A gained knowledge of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
textreferences: Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Practice Continuity Alternative Identification
type: PracticeContinuityAlternativeIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Practice Continuity Alternative Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A had the capability to identify viable practice continuity alternatives for Engineer B — including engaging Engineer R as a qualified temporary engineer — that would maintain ethical and legal compliance while preserving the firm's ability to serve clients during Engineer B's recovery
casecontext: Engineer A's knowledge of Engineer R's qualifications and the situation positioned him to identify practice continuity alternatives as part of a cooperative reporting approach
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Case analysis identifies that Engineer A could have proposed hiring a qualified temporary engineer such as Engineer R as a practice continuity alternative, potentially enabling cooperative resolution with the state board
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty
textreferences: Further, under such a scenario, the Board might exercise discretion relative to formal sanction (or not) of Engineer B
textreferences: Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Assessment Structural Retention
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that structural engineering design was outside his own firm's competence and to retain a qualified structural engineer consultant, though he did not adequately verify Engineer B's ongoing competence given the impairment
casecontext: Engineer A correctly identified the need for a structural engineering specialist and retained Engineer B for that purpose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Retaining Engineer B as a structural engineer consultant for the structural design of his new office building, recognizing that structural engineering was outside his civil engineering and surveying firm's competence
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A purchased land for a new office building, he retained an architect, and he retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
textreferences: Engineer A purchased land for a new office building, he retained an architect, and he retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to exercise the capability to recognize that the identified risks to public health and safety from Engineer B's impaired practice required escalation to the state licensure board, beyond the private confrontation initially chosen
casecontext: Engineer A's discovery of structural failures resulting from Engineer B's impaired practice triggered mandatory public safety escalation obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER determined Engineer A had an obligation to report to the state board under NSPE Code Sections I.1, II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.7, regardless of personal friendship with Engineer B
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
textreferences: Code Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action
textreferences: The BER has almost always taken the position that whenever any violation of the Code or issues of public health, safety, and welfare are uncovered, the proper authorities should be notified
textreferences: engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Impaired Peer
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that the confirmed structural failures and serious design deficiencies caused by Engineer B's impaired practice required escalation to the State Board as a public safety matter, allowing personal considerations to override public safety obligations
casecontext: Engineer A had confirmed evidence of public safety risk from impaired engineering practice but did not escalate to regulatory authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failing to report Engineer B to the State Board despite confirmed evidence of structural failure, serious design errors, and ongoing impaired practice posing public safety risks
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety at Risk from Structural Failure
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the structural failure through Engineer R's complete redesign of the structure
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Future occupants
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The risk to public safety posed by Engineer B's deficient structural design, including portions of the structure not yet built at the time of the failure
terminatedby: Engineer R's complete redesign of the structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
triggeringevent: Structural failure during basement construction and Engineer R's discovery of serious design errors in unbuilt portions of the structure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Design Error Discovered in Completed Work
type: DesignErrorDiscoveredinCompletedWorkState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer R's technical review revealing incompetent documents through remediation and reporting
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
stateclass: Design Error Discovered in Completed Work State
subject: Engineer R's discovery of incompetent design and construction documents produced under Engineer B's seal
terminatedby: Reporting to State Board and remediation of deficient documents
textreferences: it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
triggeringevent: Engineer R conducted a technical review and uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.733270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach
type: FinancialPressureDrivingScopeOverreachState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's stroke through the structural failure
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
stateclass: Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach State
subject: Engineer B's financial inability or unwillingness to suspend practice following his stroke, driving the decision to continue operations through an impaired and non-compliant practice structure
terminatedby: Structural failure and Engineer A's confrontation
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
triggeringevent: Engineer B's determination that he could not afford to suspend work or close his office following his stroke, leading to delegation of design authority to Engineer Intern C
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.714911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Resistance Failure
type: FinancialPressureResistanceinImpairedPracticeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Financial Pressure Resistance in Impaired Practice Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to resist financial pressures driving continuation of impaired practice, choosing instead to continue operating his firm for financial reasons despite his stroke
casecontext: Engineer B continued operating his firm for financial reasons following his stroke, enabling the impaired practice arrangement with Engineer Intern C
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Continued to operate his structural engineering firm and sign sealed documents for financial reasons despite being unable to provide adequate direction and review
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B, a structural engineer and personal friend of Engineer A, suffered a stroke, continued operating his firm for financial reasons
textreferences: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem
textreferences: Engineer B, a structural engineer and personal friend of Engineer A, suffered a stroke, continued operating his firm for financial reasons
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Resistance Impaired Practice
type: FinancialPressureResistanceinImpairedPracticeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Financial Pressure Resistance in Impaired Practice Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to resist financial pressures motivating continuation of impaired practice, allowing financial considerations to override professional obligations to public safety and competent practice
casecontext: Engineer B continued operating his firm for financial reasons despite stroke-induced impairment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Explicit acknowledgment that financial reasons prevented suspension of practice despite known medical impairment
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
type: ImpairedEngineerDelegatingUnsealedWork
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'impairment': 'Stroke-induced cognitive impairment', 'violation': 'Signed and sealed documents without direction or control; violated NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B suffered a stroke that substantially diminished his cognitive and professional capacity, yet continued to sign and seal design drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C without adequate direction, control, or review, thereby violating responsible charge obligations and state licensure law.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Engineer R'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer Intern C'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
sourcetext: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal
textreferences: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke
textreferences: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Impaired Practice Cessation Violation Instance
type: ImpairedPracticeCessationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that substantially diminished his capacity to perform structural engineering design and review. For financial reasons, he chose to continue operating his firm by delegating all design work to Engineer Intern C and signing and sealing drawings with little to no review, resulting in serious structural failures.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to immediately cease practicing engineering in responsible charge upon suffering a stroke that substantially diminished his cognitive capacity, and to suspend or close his practice or arrange for qualified licensed supervision, rather than continuing to sign and seal structural drawings he could not competently review.
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior. Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke onward
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior. Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II.2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Impaired Practice Continuation Resistance
type: MedicalImpairmentPracticeCessationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Medical Impairment Practice Cessation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his stroke-induced impairment precluded adequate direction and control of engineering work, and to cease signing and sealing documents accordingly
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that substantially diminished his cognitive and professional capacity yet continued operating his structural engineering firm and signing sealed documents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Continued to sign and seal design drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C without adequate review or direction, in violation of NSPE Code Section II.2 and responsible charge requirements
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem
textreferences: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control
textreferences: Engineer B's actions were in violation of NSPE's Position Statement No. 10-1778: Responsible Charge
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer
type: ImpairedEngineerDelegatingUnsealedWork
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'medical_condition': 'Stroke causing cognitive/professional impairment', 'firm_role': 'Sole licensed PE and owner', 'financial_motivation': 'Could not afford to suspend or close practice'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B, a structural engineer and personal friend of Engineer A, suffered a stroke, continued operating his firm for financial reasons, delegated all design work to Engineer Intern C, and signed and sealed drawings with little to no review, resulting in serious structural design errors and the failure of Engineer A's building basement.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Manager'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_friend', 'target': 'Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'provider_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Intern'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
sourcetext: Engineer A retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.715739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Insufficient Responsible Charge
type: InsufficientResponsibleChargeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's post-stroke delegation of design work to Engineer Intern C through the structural failure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
stateclass: Insufficient Responsible Charge State
subject: Engineer B's affixing of his seal to structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C without meaningful review, engagement, or supervisory direction over the design development process
terminatedby: Structural failure and discovery of design errors
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
triggeringevent: Engineer B's decision to sign and seal drawings with little to no review following his stroke, while delegating substantive design authority to Engineer Intern C
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.714703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Medical Impairment Practice Cessation
type: MedicalImpairmentPracticeCessationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Medical Impairment Practice Cessation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to recognize and act on his obligation to cease or suspend professional practice following his stroke, instead continuing to sign and seal drawings with little to no review
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that substantially diminished his cognitive and professional capacity yet continued operating his firm for financial reasons
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Failure to suspend practice or close office after stroke, instead delegating all design work to an unsupervised intern while continuing to affix professional seal
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment Concealment
type: Post-StrokeCognitiveImpairmentConcealmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the structural failure and Engineer A's private confrontation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's clients
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
stateclass: Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment Concealment State
subject: Engineer B's continued operation of his firm and sealing of documents following a stroke that materially impaired his professional capacity
terminatedby: Engineer A's private confrontation with Engineer B presenting Engineer R's report (though no formal reporting or cessation of practice is documented)
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
triggeringevent: Engineer B suffered a stroke that materially impaired his cognitive and professional capacity, yet continued to operate his firm and affix his seal to engineering documents
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Competence
type: ProfessionalSealAffixationCompetenceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to verify genuine domain competence before affixing his professional seal, signing and sealing drawings prepared by an unsupervised intern with little to no substantive review
casecontext: Engineer B affixed his professional seal to drawings he had not substantively reviewed, resulting in structural failure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Signing and sealing construction drawings for a building that contained a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Competence Violation Instance
type: ProfessionalSealAffixationCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, impaired by stroke, signed and sealed structural drawings prepared entirely by Engineer Intern C without adequate direction, supervision, or review, resulting in serious structural design errors and a structural failure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Professional Seal Affixation Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from affixing his signature and professional seal to structural engineering drawings that were not prepared under his direction and control and that he could not competently review due to his stroke-induced impairment.
sourcetext: Engineer B violated Section II.2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
temporalscope: Throughout the period following Engineer B's stroke during which he continued to sign and seal structural drawings
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II.2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review. Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety at Risk from Impaired Practice
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the onset of Engineer B's impaired practice through discovery and remediation of deficient documents
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The risk to public safety arising from engineering design documents produced without adequate direction, supervision, or review due to Engineer B's impairment
terminatedby: Discovery, reporting, and remediation of deficient documents
textreferences: Engineer B was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a
textreferences: engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
triggeringevent: Engineer B continued to seal engineering documents while cognitively impaired, with design work effectively performed by an unsupervised intern
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.733429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Active Engagement
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to maintain active, substantive engagement in the engineering process when bearing responsible charge, instead delegating all design work to an intern and providing only pro forma seal affixation without genuine direction or review
casecontext: Engineer B's impaired condition prevented genuine responsible charge engagement, reducing his role to nominal seal affixation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: Delegating practically all design work to Engineer Intern C and signing sealed drawings with little to no review, resulting in serious structural design errors
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Active Engagement Failure
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capacity to maintain active, substantive engagement in the engineering process from conception to completion, instead signing and sealing documents prepared entirely by Engineer Intern C without his direction or control
casecontext: Engineer B's stroke-induced impairment rendered him unable to fulfill responsible charge obligations yet he continued to affix his seal to documents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Signed and sealed structural design drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C without involvement in design and development process, in direct violation of NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge
textreferences: The professional engineer in Responsible Charge is actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Active Supervision Violation Instance
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveSupervisionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, impaired by stroke, delegated all substantive structural design work to Engineer Intern C and signed and sealed the resulting drawings with little to no review, in direct violation of NSPE's Responsible Charge position statement and NSPE Code II.2.b.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Active Supervision Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to be actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion and to personally make or directly supervise all engineering decisions, and was prohibited from signing and sealing drawings prepared entirely by Engineer Intern C without genuine involvement in design development and with little to no review.
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience. The way they operated was, Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period following Engineer B's stroke during which he continued to sign and seal structural drawings
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience. The way they operated was, Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Engineer B's actions were in violation of NSPE's Position Statement No. 10-1778: Responsible Charge which states: 'Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.'
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.728734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Structural Design Error - Deficient Design Harm Materialized
type: DeficientDesignHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the commencement of construction through the structural failure and Engineer R's independent review
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure
stateclass: Deficient Design Harm Materialized State
subject: Engineer B's structurally deficient design for Engineer A's office building basement and overall structure, resulting in actual structural failure during construction
terminatedby: Engineer A's retention of Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
triggeringevent: Structural failure during basement construction, confirmed by Engineer R's independent review revealing serious design errors, omissions, and faulty details
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Structural Engineering Design Competence Impaired
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B's structural engineering design competence was substantially diminished by his stroke, rendering him unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings, resulting in incompetent design and construction documents
casecontext: Engineer B's stroke-induced impairment substantially diminished his structural engineering competence, yet he continued to sign and seal documents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Structural drawings and construction documents prepared under his seal were found by Engineer R to be incompetent, with structural failures resulting from the deficient designs
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal
textreferences: Engineer B was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal
textreferences: Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Structural Failure Harm Materialized
type: StructuralFailureHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment of structural failure through the redesign and remediation process
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure
stateclass: Structural Failure Harm Materialized State
subject: Physical structural failure of Engineer A's office building basement during construction, confirming that design errors caused actual harm
terminatedby: Engineer R's complete redesign of the structure
textreferences: Early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure
textreferences: Engineer A noticed what he believed was 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
triggeringevent: Significant structural failure during basement construction, attributed to Engineer B's deficient design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Suffers Stroke
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation
type: UnlicensedInternResponsibleChargeDelegationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer B became unable to provide guidance and supervision through the discovery of the deficient documents
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C is working within the safety net of Engineer B's guidance and direct supervision
stateclass: Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation State
subject: Engineer B's effective transfer of substantive engineering design authority to Engineer Intern C without meaningful review, while affixing his seal to the resulting work
terminatedby: Discovery by Engineer R
textreferences: Engineer B affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is working within the safety net of Engineer B's guidance and direct supervision
triggeringevent: Engineer B became cognitively impaired and unable to provide guidance, direct supervision, or review, effectively delegating design authority to Engineer Intern C
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.733110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Unlicensed Practice Non-Aiding Boundary Failure
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulPracticeBoundaryMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to maintain the boundary between permissible delegation and impermissible aiding of unlicensed practice, effectively enabling Engineer Intern C to perform licensed structural engineering work without adequate supervision and then certifying that work through seal affixation
casecontext: Engineer B's delegation arrangement with Engineer Intern C crossed the boundary from permissible delegation to impermissible enablement of unlicensed practice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Delegating all structural design work to an unsupervised intern and signing and sealing the resulting drawings with little to no review, effectively enabling unlicensed practice under the cover of his professional seal
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Management Boundary
type: Non-EngineerFirmManagementBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Firm Management Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B's wife lacked the capability to recognize the professional and legal boundaries constraining a non-engineer manager of a licensed engineering firm, enabling the firm to continue performing engineering services without adequate licensed professional supervision
casecontext: Engineer B's wife assumed firm management following his stroke, enabling continued operations that resulted in structural failure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Assuming operational management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke and enabling continued firm operations despite the absence of adequate licensed professional oversight
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Manager
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Management Boundary Failure
type: Non-EngineerFirmManagementBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Firm Management Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B's wife lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize the professional and legal boundaries constraining a non-licensed individual who assumes operational management of a licensed professional engineering firm, enabling the firm to continue operating engineering practice without adequate licensed supervision
casecontext: Engineer B's wife assumed operational management of the firm following his stroke, enabling the continuation of impaired practice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Assumed operational management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the firm to continue operating and delivering engineering services without adequate licensed professional oversight
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Manager
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's wife assumed operational management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the firm to continue operating
textreferences: Engineer B's wife assumed operational management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the firm to continue operating
textreferences: a non-engineer manager may not authorize, direct, or enable the performance of engineering services that require licensed professional oversight
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Instance
type: Non-EngineerFirmManagementProhibitionComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Following Engineer B's stroke, his wife assumed operational management of the structural engineering firm, enabling the firm to continue operating with Engineer Intern C performing all substantive design work and Engineer B signing and sealing drawings with little to no review — an arrangement that circumvented licensure requirements protecting the public.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B's wife and Engineer B's firm
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B's firm and its principals were obligated to refrain from permitting Engineer B's wife — a non-licensed, non-engineer individual — to assume operational management of the structural engineering firm in a manner that enabled the continued delivery of engineering services without genuine licensed professional oversight, following Engineer B's incapacitation by stroke.
sourcetext: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B's wife assumed management of the firm following his stroke
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office. Rather, Engineer B's wife took over management of the business.
textreferences: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Manager
type: Non-EngineerFirmManager
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'relationship_to_firm_owner': 'Spouse', 'management_role': 'Business operations management post-impairment'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B's wife assumed operational management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the firm to continue operations with Engineer Intern C performing design work and Engineer B nominally signing and sealing drawings, without possessing engineering licensure or qualifications.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'enables_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Intern'}
relationships: {'type': 'manages_firm_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Non-Engineer Firm Manager
sourcetext: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B's Stroke Disclosed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B's stroke before Engineer B signing and sealing drawings without adequate review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B's stroke before Engineer B's wife taking over management of the business
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B's stroke before Engineer Intern C performing all design work under Engineer B's seal
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer B's stroke before significant structural failure during basement construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Incapacity and Delegation Standard - Post-Stroke Practice
type: EngineerIncapacityandDelegationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering societies and state licensing boards
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Incapacity and Delegation of Design Responsibilities
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Incapacity and Delegation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
usedby: Engineer B
usedincontext: Establishes that Engineer B's decision to continue practice after a stroke, delegating all design work to an intern with minimal review, violated professional obligations to suspend or close practice when competence is compromised
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Complicity in Impaired Licensee Practice
type: InternComplicityinImpairedLicenseePracticeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer Intern C became aware of Engineer B's stroke through the structural failure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
stateclass: Intern Complicity in Impaired Licensee Practice State
subject: Engineer Intern C's active cooperation with Engineer B's impaired practice, with full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and incapacity
terminatedby: Structural failure and discovery of design errors
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern C's continued performance of structural design work under Engineer B's seal with full knowledge of Engineer B's impaired condition
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Cooperative Complicity Recognition Failure
type: CooperativeImpairedPracticeComplicityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cooperative Impaired Practice Complicity Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C failed to recognize that cooperating in the arrangement with impaired Engineer B constituted ethical complicity in inadequately supervised practice, despite being legally shielded from censure under the state engineering practice act
casecontext: Engineer Intern C's legal immunity from censure under the state engineering practice act did not absolve ethical responsibility for cooperative complicity in impaired practice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Actively cooperated with Engineer B's arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services despite knowing Engineer B could not provide adequate guidance, direct supervision, or review — constituting violation of NSPE Code II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Dissent Calibration Impaired Supervision
type: EngineerInternDissentCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C lacked the capability to correctly calibrate the form and intensity of professional dissent from performing licensed engineering work under an impaired supervisor, failing to recognize that the situation required mandatory dissent rather than acquiescence
casecontext: Engineer Intern C performed licensed engineering work under nominal supervision without dissenting or escalating despite awareness of impairment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Continuing to perform all structural design work despite full awareness of Engineer B's impaired condition, without raising formal objection or escalating to appropriate authorities
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Impaired Supervision Recognition Failure
type: ImpairedSupervisionRecognitionandRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Impaired Supervision Recognition and Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C recognized Engineer B's impaired condition but failed to exercise the capability to refuse to perform licensed engineering work under such inadequate supervision, instead cooperating in the arrangement
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition and cooperated with the arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Performed all substantive structural design and prepared construction drawings under the direction of a medically impaired licensed engineer who could not provide adequate guidance, direct supervision, or review
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Impaired Supervision Recognition Refusal
type: ImpairedSupervisionRecognitionandRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Impaired Supervision Recognition and Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C lacked the capability to refuse to perform licensed structural engineering work under the inadequate supervision of a medically impaired licensed engineer, proceeding with design work despite full awareness of Engineer B's impaired condition
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition yet continued to perform licensed engineering work under his nominal supervision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Performing all substantive structural design and preparing construction drawings while fully aware of Engineer B's stroke-induced impairment and the nominal nature of his review
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.695707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Failure
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulPracticeBoundaryMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C failed to maintain the boundary between permissible professional work and impermissible aiding of inadequately supervised engineering practice, cooperating in an arrangement that violated NSPE Code Section II.1.e
casecontext: Engineer Intern C's cooperation in the arrangement with impaired Engineer B constituted aiding unlawful practice under NSPE Code II.1.e
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Performed substantive structural engineering design and prepared construction drawings under an arrangement with a medically impaired engineer who could not provide adequate supervision, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of engineering
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.697742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Violation Instance
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C, fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition, cooperated in the arrangement that constituted unlawful engineering practice under state registration law, in violation of NSPE Code II.1.e.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern C
obligationclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern C was obligated to refrain from aiding and abetting Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering — specifically, the arrangement whereby Engineer B signed and sealed drawings prepared without his genuine direction, supervision, or competent review — and to take affirmative steps to address the unlawful practice rather than cooperating in its continuation.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer Intern C became aware of Engineer B's impairment and the nature of their working arrangement
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Structural Engineering Design Competence
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern C lacked sufficient structural engineering design competence to independently produce construction drawings free from serious errors, omissions, and faulty details, as evidenced by the structural failure and the numerous design deficiencies identified by Engineer R
casecontext: Engineer Intern C with approximately two years of experience performed all substantive structural design without adequate supervision, resulting in serious design deficiencies
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of structural construction drawings containing a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details that led to basement structural failure
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Violation Instance
type: SubordinateComplicityProhibitioninImpairedSupervision
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C, fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition following his stroke, cooperated in an arrangement to perform all substantive structural engineering design and prepare construction drawings, which Engineer B then signed and sealed with little to no review. This arrangement resulted in serious structural failures.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern C
obligationclass: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Impaired Supervision
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern C was obligated to refrain from cooperating in an arrangement whereby the impaired Engineer B signed and sealed structural drawings that Engineer Intern C had prepared without adequate supervision, and was obligated to report the arrangement to appropriate authorities including the state engineering licensure board.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period during which Engineer Intern C performed unsupervised structural design work under Engineer B's impaired oversight
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C's complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Unlicensed Responsible Charge Delegation
type: UnlicensedInternResponsibleChargeDelegationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B delegated design authority to Engineer Intern C following his stroke through the structural failure
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer Intern C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:06.505557+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
stateclass: Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation State
subject: Engineer Intern C performing substantive structural design and producing construction drawings under Engineer B's seal with little to no review
terminatedby: Structural failure and Engineer A's retention of Engineer R for independent review
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building
triggeringevent: Engineer B's decision to delegate practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer with approximately two years of experience, while affixing his seal with minimal review
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.714444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
type: UnsupervisedEngineerInternPerformingLicensedWork
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Engineer Intern (not yet licensed PE)', 'awareness': "Fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition", 'violation': 'Violated Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the NSPE Code of Ethics'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Intern C performed substantive engineering design work and prepared construction drawings under the direction of a medically impaired licensed engineer who provided little to no actual supervisory review, while being fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition and cooperating in the arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:03.531357+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'complicit_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.732321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Intern
type: UnsupervisedEngineerInternPerformingLicensedWork
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Engineer Intern (not licensed PE)', 'experience': 'Approximately two years', 'awareness_of_impairment': True, 'scope_of_work': 'All structural design and construction drawing preparation'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer with approximately two years of experience, performed all substantive structural design and prepared construction drawings for Engineer A's building while fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition, with Engineer B signing and sealing the drawings with little to no review.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'aware_of_impairment_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by_nominally', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C performing design work overlaps basement construction phase
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Intern C performing design work under Engineer B's seal before structural failure of Engineer A's building
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Design Deficiency Causal Attribution
type: DesignDeficiencyCausalAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R demonstrated advanced capability to identify, analyze, and accurately attribute the root causes of structural design deficiencies — including determining that deficiencies arose from inadequate competence and lack of substantive supervisory review — and to communicate this causal attribution through a formal independent review report
casecontext: Engineer R's independent review revealed the scope and nature of design deficiencies enabling Engineer A to understand the full extent of the problem
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Producing an independent review report identifying serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details across both the failed basement and unbuilt portions of the structure
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Independent Reviewer Impaired Practice Reporting Obligation Instance
type: IndependentReviewerReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R, retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed basement structure, discovered a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details attributable to Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement. Engineer R was subsequently informed of Engineer B's stroke and the arrangement with Engineer Intern C.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer R
obligationclass: Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer R was obligated to report Engineer B's impaired and unlawful engineering practice to the State Board upon discovering the serious structural design errors and learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement, unless Engineer A's report to the Board was styled to note Engineer R's concurrence.
sourcetext: Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
temporalscope: Upon completion of Engineer R's independent review and upon learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
textreferences: Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
textreferences: Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.729584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation Assessment
type: IndependentReviewerReportingObligationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed the capability to assess whether his independent discovery of incompetent practice triggered an independent reporting obligation to the state licensure board, and to correctly determine that this obligation would require independent action if Engineer A failed to take the lead in reporting
casecontext: Engineer R technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents and was subsequently informed of Engineer B's impairment and the series of actions that followed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Case analysis establishes that Engineer R was obligated to report Engineer B to the state board under NSPE Code Section II.1.f if Engineer A did not take the lead in reporting, with Engineer R's concurrence noted in a joint report if Engineer A led
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)
textreferences: in the aftermath of Engineer R's discovery, it is reasonable to think Engineer R was informed of Engineer B's impairment due to a stroke
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Review
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer R demonstrated expert structural engineering design competence enabling independent identification of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details in Engineer B's construction drawings, and complete redesign of the structure
casecontext: Engineer R, described as a well-respected structural engineer, was retained to independently review the structural drawings and failed basement structure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: Conducting an independent review that revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, and subsequently completely redesigning the structure
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:09.818764+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.696559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
type: IndependentStructuralFailureReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'reputation': 'Well-respected', 'independence': 'No prior involvement with original design'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer R, described as a well-respected structural engineer, was retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed basement structure, identified numerous serious design errors and omissions in both failed and unbuilt portions, and was subsequently retained to completely redesign the structure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:35.914959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Civil Engineering Firm Owner Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewer_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Impaired Structural Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
sourcetext: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure
textreferences: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
textreferences: not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.732172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Public Safety Escalation Obligation
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed the capability to recognize that his discovery of incompetent engineering practice and structural failures required escalation to the state licensure board under NSPE Code Section II.1.f, independently of whether the commissioning client Engineer A took the lead in reporting
casecontext: Engineer R's independent discovery of incompetent practice triggered reporting obligations under NSPE Code Section II.1.f
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Case analysis establishes Engineer R's independent obligation to report to the state board if Engineer A did not take the lead, based on Engineer R's discovery of incompetent practice
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)
textreferences: Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)
textreferences: engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Structural Engineering Design Competence
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed advanced structural engineering design competence enabling him to independently identify the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents and the structural failures resulting therefrom
casecontext: Engineer R was described as a well-respected structural engineer retained to independently review structural drawings and failed construction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Retained as a well-respected structural engineer to independently review structural drawings and failed construction, successfully identifying incompetent design and construction documents
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:22:22.373265+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R Independent Structural Failure Reviewer
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
textreferences: Engineer R, described as a well-respected structural engineer, was retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed construction
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R Third-Party Discovery Reporting Obligation
type: Third-PartyDiscoveryReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer R's discovery of incompetent documents and subsequent awareness of Engineer B's impairment through the reporting decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:21.039059+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
stateclass: Third-Party Discovery Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer R's obligation to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board after discovering incompetent design documents and learning of the circumstances producing them
terminatedby: Engineer A's lead reporting (with Engineer R's concurrence noted) or Engineer R's independent report to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer R was informed of Engineer B's impairment due to a stroke, and also the series of actions by Engineer B and Engineer Intern C that followed
textreferences: Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)
textreferences: it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
triggeringevent: Engineer R technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents and was informed of Engineer B's impairment and the actions of Engineer B and Engineer Intern C
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.732884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board - Engineer A's Decision Not to Report
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoStateBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE and state engineering licensing authorities
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Duty to Report Violations to State Licensing Board
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Establishes the professional and ethical obligation of Engineer A to report Engineer B's conduct to the State Board, and frames the ethical tension created by Engineer A's decision not to report due to personal friendship and sympathy for Engineer B's impairment
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R's independent review before Engineer A retaining Engineer R to redesign the structure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R's independent review before private meeting between Engineer A and Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineer R's redesign of the structure after significant structural failure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineering Intern Supervision Standard - Sign and Seal Without Review
type: EngineeringInternSupervisionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State engineering licensing boards and professional engineering societies
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Supervision of Engineering Interns and Sign-and-Seal Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
usedby: Engineer B, Engineer Intern C
usedincontext: Establishes that Engineer B's practice of signing and sealing drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C with little to no review violated the professional obligation to adequately supervise subordinate engineering work
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.715196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Engineering Intern Supervision Standard Constraint - Engineer B Sealing Without Review
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's practice of signing and sealing drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C with little to no review violated the professional standard requiring active supervisory direction and control over intern work product.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required by professional norms and state licensure law to provide genuine supervisory direction and control over Engineer Intern C's structural design work before affixing his seal, prohibiting the practice of signing and sealing drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C with little to no review, as established by the Engineering Intern Supervision Standard and NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778; State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements
sourcetext: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer B's post-stroke firm operation
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Engineering decisions must be personally made by the professional engineer or by others over which the professional engineer provides supervisory direction and control authority.
textreferences: This also shows Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a).
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.726472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition - Engineer B
type: FinancialPressurePracticeContinuationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B explicitly cited financial reasons as the basis for not suspending practice after his stroke, delegating all design work to an intern while continuing to seal documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from continuing to practice, seal documents, or hold himself out as providing competent engineering services when the primary motivation for continuation was financial necessity — avoidance of business closure or income loss — given that he lacked the cognitive capacity to exercise genuine responsible charge following his stroke.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Rather, Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
textreferences: for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.734236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint - Engineer B Post-Stroke
type: FinancialPressurePracticeContinuationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B explicitly cited financial reasons as the basis for not suspending practice after his stroke, delegating all substantive design work to an intern while continuing to seal documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from continuing to practice, seal documents, or hold himself out as providing competent engineering services when the primary motivation for continuation was financial necessity — avoidance of business closure and income loss — when his post-stroke condition rendered him incapable of exercising genuine responsible charge.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.721856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization - Engineer A Reporting Constraint
type: ImpairedPeerReportingObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A explicitly cited long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment as the reasons for not reporting to the State Board, constituting a friendship-based rationalization for non-compliance with the mandatory reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from rationalizing non-reporting of Engineer B's impaired practice on the basis of personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical and financial circumstances, as the public safety obligation arising from Engineer B's demonstrated design failures and ongoing impaired practice superseded personal loyalty considerations.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 17-7; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's private meeting with Engineer B through the period of non-reporting
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Friendship Non-Reporting Prohibition Constraint - Engineer A Non-Reporting
type: FriendshipNon-ReportingProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure but chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board, rationalizing the non-reporting through personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical circumstances.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Friendship Non-Reporting Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from substituting personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B for the mandatory obligation to report Engineer B's violations — including impaired practice, inadequate supervision of Engineer Intern C, and the resulting public safety risk — to the State Board, as the strength of personal friendship does not diminish the reporting obligation established by NSPE Code Sections I.1, II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.7.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections I.1, II.1.e, II.1.f, III.7; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the structural failure through the period of non-reporting
textreferences: But any of them must begin with the conviction that the ethics code does not permit engineers to turn a blind eye to the unethical practice of engineering.
textreferences: Code Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action, unambiguously requires that such violations be reported to the appropriate professional body, in this case the State Board.
textreferences: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

II.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension - Engineer B Post-Stroke Continuation
type: ImpairedLicenseePracticeSuspensionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office for financial reasons following his stroke, and instead delegated all design work to an intern while continuing to seal documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.98
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, having suffered a stroke that materially impaired his cognitive and professional functioning, was required to suspend practice, close his office, or otherwise cease sealing engineering documents until competence was restored, and was prohibited from continuing professional practice under the fiction of responsible charge when he lacked the cognitive capacity to exercise genuine review, direction, and control over work product bearing his seal.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard - Engineer B Post-Stroke Practice; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke onward until competence was restored
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.733791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension Constraint - Engineer B Financial Pressure
type: FinancialPressurePracticeContinuationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's financial inability or unwillingness to suspend practice following his stroke drove the decision to continue operations through an arrangement with Engineer Intern C, resulting in structurally deficient design and actual structural failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from continuing to practice, seal documents, or operate his firm on the basis of financial necessity following his stroke, as his post-stroke cognitive impairment rendered him incapable of exercising genuine responsible charge, and financial hardship does not constitute a justification for practicing beyond one's current competence or capacity.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued firm operation
textreferences: Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
textreferences: Engineer B's financial inability or unwillingness to suspend practice following his stroke, driving the decision to continue operations through an arrangement with Engineer Intern C.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension Constraint - Engineer B Financial Pressure Continuation
type: ImpairedLicenseePracticeSuspensionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office for financial and other reasons following his stroke, and instead delegated all design work to Engineer Intern C while continuing to seal documents with little to no review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to suspend practice, close his office, or otherwise cease sealing engineering documents following his stroke, and was prohibited from continuing professional practice under the fiction of responsible charge when he lacked the cognitive capacity to exercise genuine review, direction, and control — financial necessity and business continuity concerns did not constitute justification for continued practice.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard - Engineer B Post-Stroke Practice; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
textreferences: Rather, Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.721683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation - Engineer A Non-Reporting of Engineer B
type: ImpairedPeerReportingObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure but chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board due to their long friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical circumstances.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.98
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having direct personal knowledge that Engineer B was practicing while medically impaired following a stroke — and whose impaired practice caused actual structural failure and ongoing public safety risk — was required to report Engineer B to the State Board of Engineering, and was prohibited from rationalizing non-reporting on the basis of personal friendship, sympathy for Engineer B's financial circumstances, or private confrontation as a substitute for formal regulatory notification.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.734727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint - Engineer A Knowledge of Engineer B
type: ImpairedPeerReportingObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure of the office building basement but chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board, citing personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical circumstances.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having direct personal knowledge that Engineer B was practicing while medically impaired following a stroke — and whose impaired practice had caused actual structural failure and ongoing public safety risk — was required to report Engineer B to the State Board of Engineering, prohibiting non-reporting rationalized by personal friendship, sympathy for Engineer B's financial circumstances, or private confrontation as a substitute for formal regulatory notification.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections I.1, II.1.e, II.1.f, III.7; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure
textreferences: Code Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action, unambiguously requires that such violations be reported to the appropriate professional body, in this case the State Board.
textreferences: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
textreferences: This determination is also strengthened by Section III.8.a, engineers shall conform with state licensure law.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.726117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint - Engineer A Non-Reporting of Engineer B
type: ImpairedPeerReportingObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A privately confronted Engineer B with Engineer R's report of serious design errors and learned of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment, but chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board out of personal friendship and compassion for Engineer B's medical and financial circumstances.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having direct personal knowledge that Engineer B was practicing while medically impaired following a stroke — and that this impaired practice caused actual structural failure — was obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board and was prohibited from substituting private confrontation and personal friendship for that mandatory formal reporting obligation.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 17-7; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting structural failure
textreferences: At this meeting, Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation Violated By Engineer B
type: ImpairedPracticeCessationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B signing and sealing drawings without adequate review
appliedto: Engineer B's continued practice after stroke
balancingwith: Financial survival of firm
balancingwith: Loyalty to firm employees
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, having suffered a stroke that substantially diminished his cognitive capacity, continued to sign and seal structural engineering drawings with little to no review rather than suspending practice or arranging qualified substitute supervision
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The stroke created a medical impairment that triggered the cessation obligation; financial reasons do not constitute an ethical justification for continuing impaired practice
invokedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
principleclass: Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior. Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
tensionresolution: Impaired practice cessation obligation is not overridden by financial considerations; Engineer B was required to suspend practice or arrange qualified substitute supervision
textreferences: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem.
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.726838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Independent Engineering Review - Engineer R's Structural Assessment
type: IndependentEngineeringReviewStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Engineer R (well-respected structural engineer retained by Engineer A)
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Independent Review of Structural Drawings and Failed Basement Structure by Engineer R
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Independent Engineering Review Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report
textreferences: Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer R
usedincontext: Engineer R's independent review provided the evidentiary basis for identifying the scope of Engineer B's design errors and formed the foundation for Engineer A's confrontation of Engineer B with the faulty design
version: Project-specific
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Ethical Culpability Constraint - Engineer Intern C Complicity
type: InternEthicalCulpabilityDespiteUnlicensedStatusConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition following his stroke and cooperated with the arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services, performing substantive structural design and producing construction drawings under Engineer B's seal with little to no review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C bore independent ethical culpability under the NSPE Code of Ethics for knowingly cooperating with Engineer B's impaired practice — performing substantive structural design work to be sealed by Engineer B without adequate review — despite full awareness of Engineer B's stroke and incapacity, even though the intern's unlicensed status may shield them from legal censure under the State Engineering Practice Act.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.e, II.1.f, III.8.a; BER Case 15-2
sourcetext: While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's cooperation with Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: In summary, Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: The facts suggest Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition.
textreferences: While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status - Engineer Intern C
type: InternEthicalCulpabilityDespiteUnlicensedStatusConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's stroke and impaired condition yet continued to perform all structural design work under Engineer B's seal without adequate supervision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, despite being unlicensed and therefore potentially shielded from legal censure under the State Engineering Practice Act, bore independent ethical culpability under the professional code of ethics for knowingly cooperating with Engineer B's impaired practice and continuing to deliver engineering services with full awareness of Engineer B's incapacity.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 15-2; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's knowing participation in the arrangement
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.734579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint - Engineer Intern C
type: InternEthicalCulpabilityDespiteUnlicensedStatusConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's stroke and incapacity but continued to perform all substantive engineering design work under the fiction of Engineer B's supervision and seal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, despite being unlicensed and potentially shielded from legal censure under the State Engineering Practice Act, bore independent ethical culpability under the professional code of ethics for knowingly cooperating with Engineer B's impaired and non-supervising practice, and could not treat the absence of licensure as an absence of ethical obligation.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 15-2; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's knowing participation in the impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal - Engineer Intern C Impaired Supervision
type: InternKnowingCircumventionRefusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C, with full knowledge of Engineer B's impaired condition, performed all structural design and construction drawings that Engineer B then sealed with little to no review, ultimately contributing to the structural failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, being fully aware of Engineer B's stroke and resulting incapacity, was required to refuse participation in the arrangement whereby Intern C performed substantive structural design work that would be sealed by Engineer B without adequate review, and was prohibited from knowingly serving as the de facto unlicensed engineer of record under the fiction of licensed supervision.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 15-2; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's participation in the arrangement with Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.734429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint - Engineer Intern C Arrangement
type: InternKnowingCircumventionRefusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision, or review, rather than refusing to participate and seeking correction through appropriate authorities.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C was required to refuse participation in the arrangement whereby Engineer Intern C performed substantive structural engineering design work that would be sealed by Engineer B without adequate review, and was required to seek immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities including the state engineering licensure board, as established by BER Case 15-2 precedent.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.e, II.1.f, III.8.a; BER Case 15-2
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer Intern C became aware of Engineer B's incapacity and the nature of the arrangement
textreferences: A similar ethical violation is discussed in BER Case 15-2, in which an engineering report was revised after the report was signed and sealed inappropriately. The BER determined that the Engineer had an obligation to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint - Engineer Intern C Complicity
type: InternKnowingCircumventionRefusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C was fully aware of Engineer B's stroke and impaired condition, yet continued to perform all substantive structural design work and produce construction drawings that Engineer B would seal with little to no review, ultimately contributing to the structural failure of Engineer A's office building.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C, being fully aware of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment and incapacity to exercise genuine responsible charge, was required to refuse participation in the arrangement whereby Intern C performed substantive structural design work that would be sealed by Engineer B without adequate review, and was required to seek correction through appropriate authorities.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 15-2; NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard - Sign and Seal Without Review
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's participation in the impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Licensure Integrity Violated By Engineer B Practice Arrangement
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's violation of state licensure law through impaired practice arrangement
balancingwith: Financial survival of firm
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's arrangement — signing and sealing drawings prepared by an unsupervised intern without genuine review — constituted practice in violation of state licensure law, undermining the licensure system's function of protecting the public from incompetent engineering
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: State licensure laws require that sealed documents reflect genuine professional oversight; Engineer B's arrangement converted the seal into a fraudulent representation, violating the protective purpose of licensure
invokedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a).
tensionresolution: Licensure integrity obligations are not overridden by financial necessity; the licensure system's public protection function requires compliance regardless of personal circumstances
textreferences: Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a).
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B violated Section II.2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II.2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Section I.1 of the Code, engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
textreferences: Section II.1.e, engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm
textreferences: Section II.1.f, engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies
textreferences: Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action
textreferences: Section III.8.a, engineers shall conform with state licensure law
usedby: BER in analyzing obligations of all engineers in the case
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer B's sealing obligations, Engineer Intern C's complicity, Engineer A's reporting duty, and Engineer R's obligations; multiple sections cited throughout the discussion
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.732641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Engineer Competence and Public Safety Obligations
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer B, Engineer Intern C
usedincontext: Grounds the obligation of Engineer B to practice only within competence, the obligation to supervise Engineer Intern C adequately, and the obligation of Engineer A to report Engineer B's conduct to the State Board
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice - Engineer B Delegation to Intern C
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B effectively transferred all substantive engineering design authority to unlicensed Engineer Intern C while affixing his seal to the resulting work without meaningful review, constituting facilitation of unlicensed engineering practice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from taking actions — including delegating all structural design authority to Engineer Intern C and sealing the resulting drawings without meaningful review — that aided, abetted, or facilitated the effective unlawful practice of engineering by an unlicensed individual, regardless of financial pressures or medical circumstances.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; State Engineering Practice Act; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer B's post-stroke delegation arrangement with Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint - Engineer B Delegation to Intern C
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, following his stroke, delegated practically all structural design work to Engineer Intern C and sealed the resulting drawings with little to no review, effectively enabling Engineer Intern C to practice engineering without a license.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from delegating substantive structural engineering design authority to Engineer Intern C — an unlicensed individual — and then affixing his seal to the resulting work without meaningful review, as this arrangement constituted aiding and facilitating the unlawful practice of engineering by an unlicensed individual.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; State Engineering Practice Act; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard - Sign and Seal Without Review
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer B's post-stroke delegation arrangement with Engineer Intern C
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint - Engineer Intern C
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern C actively cooperated with Engineer B's arrangement to continue delivering engineering design services despite full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and incapacity, thereby aiding the unlawful practice of engineering.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern C
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern C was prohibited from taking actions that aided or facilitated Engineer B's unlawful practice of engineering — including producing substantive structural design work to be sealed by an engineer incapable of exercising responsible charge — arising from NSPE Code Section II.1.e and the principle that the obligation to refuse facilitation of unlicensed or improperly supervised practice is non-negotiable regardless of employment hierarchy.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.e
sourcetext: Section II.1.e, engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer Intern C's cooperation with Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review.
textreferences: In summary, Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Section II.1.e, engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Implicated By Engineer B Wife
type: Non-EngineerFirmManagementProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's wife's management of structural engineering firm post-stroke
balancingwith: Family loyalty to impaired spouse
balancingwith: Financial survival of firm
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's wife assumed operational management of the structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the firm to continue delivering engineering services under conditions where the licensed engineer of record could not provide genuine supervision — thereby facilitating circumvention of the licensure system's protective function
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The wife's assumption of management enabled continuation of engineering practice that the licensed engineer could not genuinely supervise; this arrangement undermined the public protection rationale of licensure
invokedby: Engineer B Wife Non-Engineer Firm Manager
principleclass: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
tensionresolution: Non-engineer management that enables circumvention of licensure oversight is prohibited regardless of family relationship or financial necessity
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
textreferences: Engineer B's wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Peer Review Absence Compensation - Engineer B No Alternative Quality Controls
type: PeerReviewAbsenceCompensationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's stroke eliminated his capacity for meaningful supervisory review, yet no alternative quality assurance mechanism was established; instead, Engineer Intern C performed all design work without any qualified oversight.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, having lost the capacity to exercise meaningful supervisory review following his stroke, was required to establish alternative verification arrangements — such as retaining a qualified licensed engineer to provide genuine oversight — before continuing to seal structural engineering work of the complexity involved in Engineer A's office building, and was prohibited from continuing practice at the same scope without compensating quality controls.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.716926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Peer Review Cooperation Under Prior Error Accountability Constraint - Engineer B and Engineer R Review
type: PeerReviewCooperationUnderPriorErrorAccountabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A confronted Engineer B with Engineer R's report of serious design errors, and Engineer B's obligations of professional accountability required cooperation with the review process rather than resistance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Peer Review Cooperation Under Prior Error Accountability Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, whose prior work was found to contain significant structural design errors confirmed by Engineer R's independent review, was required to cooperate fully with Engineer R's legitimately commissioned review and any subsequent peer review of related work, and was prohibited from obstructing or refusing cooperation on the basis of consent-based objection when confirmed prior errors created heightened accountability obligations.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Precedent; Independent Engineering Review Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer R's review findings were presented to Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint - Engineer B Design Standard of Care
type: Post-AccidentHindsightNon-RetroactiveErrorImpositionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R's independent review confirmed serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details in Engineer B's sealed drawings — these were not merely hindsight observations but contemporaneous professional deficiencies arising from the absence of competent engineering judgment in the design process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint
constraintstatement: While Engineer B's design errors were confirmed by independent review rather than merely identified in hindsight, the professional standard-of-care determination must be grounded in what a competent structural engineer exercising genuine responsible charge would have produced — the errors here arose not from hindsight but from the absence of competent review at the time of design due to Engineer B's impaired condition.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard; BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
temporalscope: At the time of structural design and drawing production
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.723931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Post-Stroke Impaired Engineer Private Confrontation Insufficiency - Engineer A
type: Post-StrokeImpairedEngineerPrivateConfrontationInsufficiencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A treated private confrontation as a sufficient response to discovering Engineer B's impaired practice and resulting structural failure, without reporting to the State Board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Stroke Impaired Engineer Private Confrontation Insufficiency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B with the faulty design and Engineer R's report — while professionally courteous — was insufficient to discharge Engineer A's mandatory reporting obligation to the State Board, given that the impaired practice had caused actual harm and ongoing public safety risk from Engineer B's continued practice remained unmitigated.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer A's private meeting with Engineer B onward
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Post-Stroke Impaired Engineer Private Confrontation Insufficiency Constraint - Engineer A and Engineer B
type: Post-StrokeImpairedEngineerPrivateConfrontationInsufficiencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A privately confronted Engineer B but treated that private confrontation as a sufficient discharge of his professional obligations, declining to escalate to the State Board despite ongoing public safety risk from unbuilt portions of the defective structure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Stroke Impaired Engineer Private Confrontation Insufficiency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B with the faulty design and Engineer R's report did not discharge Engineer A's mandatory reporting obligation to the State Board, because Engineer B's impaired practice had caused actual structural harm and ongoing public safety risk from unbuilt defective design remained unmitigated.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 17-7; BER Case 15-2
sourcetext: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
temporalscope: From the private meeting between Engineer A and Engineer B through the period of non-reporting
textreferences: As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.721100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition - Engineer B Structural Design
type: Post-StrokeResponsibleChargeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke and continued to seal structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review, resulting in a structural failure of Engineer A's office building basement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.98
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, having suffered a stroke that materially impaired his professional capacity, was absolutely prohibited from affixing his professional signature and seal to structural engineering drawings produced by Engineer Intern C without meaningful review, as his post-stroke condition precluded genuine responsible charge over the work product.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of sealing Engineer Intern C's drawings
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.733610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition Constraint - Engineer B Post-Stroke Sealing
type: Post-StrokeResponsibleChargeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that materially impaired his professional capacity but continued to affix his seal to structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review, resulting in serious structural design errors and actual structural failure of Engineer A's office building basement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from affixing his professional signature and seal to structural engineering drawings following his stroke, which materially impaired his ability to actively direct, review, and control engineering work, because signing and sealing drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review did not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements; NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Incapacity and Delegation Standard - Post-Stroke Practice
sourcetext: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: At this meeting, Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior.
textreferences: Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.721527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Privately Confront Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Privately Confront Engineer B (Action 7) → Engineer B's Stroke Disclosed (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard - Engineer B Post-Stroke Practice
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering societies
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Competence and Scope of Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
usedby: Engineer B
usedincontext: Establishes the benchmark against which Engineer B's post-stroke continuation of structural engineering practice is evaluated, including the obligation to disclose limitations and refrain from practice when competence is compromised
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Professional Competence Violated By Engineer B Structural Design
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's sealing of structural drawings with serious errors
balancingwith: Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation
balancingwith: Responsible Charge Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, impaired by stroke, affixed his signature and seal to structural engineering documents he could not competently review or that were not prepared under his genuine direction and control, resulting in serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Post-stroke impairment reduced Engineer B's competence below the threshold required for structural engineering practice; sealing documents he could not competently review constituted a violation of the competence principle
invokedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
tensionresolution: Competence principle requires self-assessment and cessation when capacity is insufficient; financial pressures do not override this obligation
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
textreferences: Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount - Engineer A Non-Reporting Despite Ongoing Risk
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A chose not to report Engineer B despite discovering impaired practice that caused actual structural failure and posed ongoing risk to public safety from Engineer B's continued practice with other clients.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount — given the discovered structural deficiencies in unbuilt portions of the structure and Engineer B's ongoing impaired practice — constrained Engineer A from allowing personal friendship and compassion to override the duty to report Engineer B to the State Board, as non-reporting permitted ongoing public safety risk from Engineer B's continued impaired practice.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A noticed what he believed was 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A discovered Engineer B's impaired practice and the structural failure
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer A noticed what he believed was 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Constraint - Engineer A Non-Reporting Despite Known Risk
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's impaired practice had caused actual structural failure and that unbuilt portions of the structure contained serious design errors, yet chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board out of personal friendship and compassion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount required him to report Engineer B's impaired practice and the resulting ongoing risk from unbuilt defective structural design to the State Board, prohibiting Engineer A from allowing client loyalty, personal friendship, and compassion for Engineer B's circumstances to override the paramount public safety obligation.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A's Public Safety at Risk from Structural Failure: The risk to public safety posed by Engineer B's deficient structural design, including portions of the structure not yet built at the time of the failure.
temporalscope: From Engineer A's discovery of the structural failure and Engineer B's impaired practice
textreferences: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
textreferences: Engineer A's Public Safety at Risk from Structural Failure: The risk to public safety posed by Engineer B's deficient structural design, including portions of the structure not yet built at the time of the failure.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.723450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Constraint - Engineer A Reporting Obligation
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was aware of the public safety risk posed by Engineer B's deficient structural design, including portions of the structure not yet built at the time of the failure, yet chose not to report Engineer B to the State Board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the risk posed by Engineer B's deficient structural design for unbuilt portions of the structure — constrained Engineer A from remaining silent about Engineer B's violations, establishing that the public safety obligation superseded Engineer A's personal loyalty to Engineer B.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; NSPE Code Sections II.1.e, II.1.f
sourcetext: Reference is made to Section I.1 of the Code, engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A became aware of the structural failure and Engineer B's impaired practice
textreferences: Reference is made to Section I.1 of the Code, engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: Section II.1.e, engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
textreferences: Section II.1.f, engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Against Engineer A Non-Reporting
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision not to report Engineer B to State Board
balancingwith: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Personal friendship loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's decision not to report Engineer B to the State Board, despite knowing of impaired practice that caused structural failure, violated the paramount obligation to protect public welfare over personal friendship
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires reporting known violations regardless of personal friendship; the friendship relationship affects the manner of reporting but not the obligation to report
invokedby: Engineer A Compassionate Peer Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides friendship loyalty; friendship may inform the manner of reporting (cooperative, compassionate) but cannot justify non-reporting
textreferences: Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations.
textreferences: the ethics code does not permit engineers to turn a blind eye to the unethical practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.726651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.580229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.580286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A bear any responsibility for the structural failure by retaining a friend as a structural engineer without independently verifying Engineer B's current competence and capacity to perform the work before the project began?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: What ethical obligations, if any, did Engineer B's wife incur by assuming management of the firm with full knowledge of Engineer B's impaired condition, effectively enabling the continuation of a practice that posed a public safety risk?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point did Engineer Intern C's ethical obligation shift from deference to a supervising licensed engineer to an affirmative duty to refuse participation or report the arrangement to the State Board, given that Intern C had full knowledge of Engineer B's stroke and the absence of meaningful review?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B, while well-intentioned, itself constitute a form of aiding or abetting the continuation of impaired practice by giving Engineer B advance warning without triggering any formal corrective mechanism, and did it thereby extend the period of public risk?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.717522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: How should the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public be weighed against the principle that engineers shall not attempt to injure the professional reputation of a colleague, when reporting an impaired engineer to the State Board may cause lasting reputational and financial harm to that engineer?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the obligation of engineers to conform with state registration laws and sign-and-seal requirements conflict with the practical reality of financial pressure on a sole-practitioner firm, and if so, does financial hardship ever constitute a legitimate mitigating factor that modifies the ethical duty to suspend impaired practice?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: When Engineer R, retained as an independent reviewer, discovers evidence of ongoing impaired practice that extends beyond the immediate project, does the duty to report that violation to the State Board conflict with the duty not to maliciously injure a fellow engineer's reputation, and how should Engineer R navigate this tension given that reporting is compelled by direct professional knowledge rather than malice?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle that engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence create an independent ethical obligation for Engineer Intern C to refuse to perform structural design work beyond the intern's two years of experience and unlicensed status, even when directed to do so by a nominally supervising licensed engineer, and does compliance with a superior's directive relieve the intern of ethical culpability?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill his categorical duty to protect public safety when he chose personal loyalty to Engineer B over his obligation to report a known violation to the State Board, regardless of the compassionate circumstances surrounding Engineer B's stroke?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.719752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer B's decision to continue practice after his stroke — motivated by financial survival — produce net harm that outweighed any benefit to his firm, his employees, or his clients, given that the foreseeable consequence was an actual structural failure and ongoing risk to future occupants of unbuilt portions of the structure?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer Intern C demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of an emerging engineer when, with full knowledge of Engineer B's incapacitated condition, he chose to cooperate with an arrangement that placed his own career advancement and employment security above the safety of the public and the ethical standards of the profession?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer R's status as an independent third-party reviewer — retained solely to assess the structural failure and redesign the building — create a distinct and non-delegable duty to report Engineer B's violations to the State Board, independent of whatever action Engineer A chooses to take, given that Engineer R acquired direct professional knowledge of serious code violations through his formal review?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B act with professional integrity and honesty when he concealed his post-stroke impairment from clients, regulators, and the public, and does the existence of financial hardship mitigate or merely explain — but not excuse — the character failure that his continued practice represented?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.584161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, would Engineer A's private confrontation of Engineer B — without formal reporting — have been ethically sufficient if no structural failure had yet occurred and no further harm materialized, or does the public safety obligation to report exist independently of whether harm has already been realized?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.584221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_4
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 4
question text: What are Engineer A’s further ethical obligations under these circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had immediately reported Engineer B to the State Board upon discovering the structural failure and the 'odd' bracing — before privately confronting Engineer B — would the Board's intervention have created a faster pathway to a supervised practice management alternative that protected both the public and Engineer B's firm, compared to the private confrontation approach Engineer A actually chose?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer Intern C had refused to perform unsupervised structural design work — or had independently reported Engineer B's impaired condition to the State Board — would the structural failure of Engineer A's building basement have been prevented, and would Engineer Intern C's own professional trajectory have been protected from the ethical and legal consequences of complicity in unlicensed practice?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B had voluntarily disclosed his stroke to the State Board immediately after suffering it, sought a formal temporary practice management arrangement, and placed Engineer Intern C's work under the supervision of a qualified licensed structural engineer, would Engineer B have been able to preserve his firm's viability while remaining in compliance with his ethical and legal obligations — thereby avoiding the harm that ultimately resulted?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had conducted a more rigorous pre-retention competence assessment of Engineer B before awarding him the structural design contract — for example, by verifying Engineer B's current professional standing, recent project history, and firm capacity — would Engineer A have discovered warning signs of Engineer B's post-stroke impairment early enough to prevent the engagement entirely, and does the failure to perform such due diligence itself carry an ethical dimension?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.700365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Question_5
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 5
question text: What are Engineer R’s ethical obligations?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.705030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.720465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_31
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.582253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_32
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.582447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_33
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.582481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_34
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.585063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_35
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.585099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_36
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:02:35.585160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.703973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.704463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Resource Constraint - Engineer B Financial Inability to Suspend Practice
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B explicitly cited financial reasons as the basis for not suspending practice, but this resource constraint does not override the ethical and regulatory prohibition on impaired practice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Resource Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B faced a resource constraint arising from his financial inability to suspend practice or close his office following his stroke, as he was the only licensed professional engineer in his firm and could not afford the economic consequences of practice suspension — creating tension between financial necessity and the ethical and regulatory obligation to cease practice when competence is impaired.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Case facts; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice
textreferences: Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Responsible Charge Active Engagement Constraint - Engineer B Post-Stroke Sealing
type: Post-StrokeResponsibleChargeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B suffered a stroke that materially impaired his cognitive and professional functioning, yet continued to operate his firm and affix his seal to structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review, resulting in structurally deficient design and actual structural failure of Engineer A's office building basement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from affixing his professional signature and seal to structural engineering drawings produced by Engineer Intern C without his active direction, control, and meaningful review, as his post-stroke cognitive impairment rendered him incapable of exercising genuine responsible charge as defined by NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 and state licensure law.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2; NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778: Responsible Charge; State Engineering Practice Act (Section III.8.a)
sourcetext: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer B's stroke through the period of continued practice and sealing of documents
textreferences: Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem.
textreferences: Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.724263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Responsible Charge Engagement Violated By Engineer B
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's signing and sealing of drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C
balancingwith: Impaired Practice Cessation Obligation
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B signed and sealed structural drawings prepared entirely by Engineer Intern C without involvement in design development and with little to no review, failing to satisfy the responsible charge standard requiring active engagement from conception to completion
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge requires genuine involvement in design development, not merely post-hoc review; Engineer B's arrangement with Engineer Intern C constituted a complete abdication of responsible charge
invokedby: Engineer B Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
tensionresolution: Responsible charge cannot be satisfied by nominal review; Engineer B's arrangement violated the standard regardless of financial pressures
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.
textreferences: The professional engineer in Responsible Charge is actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Responsible Charge Verification - Engineer B Sealing Intern C Drawings
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B affixed his seal to structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C with little to no review, in violation of the responsible charge requirement, resulting in structurally deficient design and actual failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to have exercised active, substantive review and direction over structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge before affixing his professional seal, and was prohibited from sealing documents reviewed only cursorily or not at all following his stroke.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements; NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer B sealing Engineer Intern C's drawings post-stroke
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.694015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Responsible Charge Verification Constraint - Engineer B Sealing Intern C Drawings
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's practice of signing and sealing drawings prepared by Engineer Intern C with little to no review violated the professional and legal standard requiring genuine responsible charge as a prerequisite to sealing engineering documents.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to have exercised active, substantive review and direction over structural drawings produced by Engineer Intern C sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge before affixing his seal, and was prohibited from sealing documents reviewed only cursorily or not at all.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements; NSPE Code of Ethics; Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
temporalscope: Each instance of Engineer B affixing his seal to drawings produced by Engineer Intern C following the stroke
textreferences: Engineer Intern C would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
textreferences: Ultimately, this process led to the failure of Engineer A's building.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Retain Engineer R for Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Retain Engineer R to Redesign
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Retain Friend as Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.718113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Retain Friend as Engineer (Action 1) → Structural Failure Occurs (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Serious Design Errors Revealed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

State Engineering Licensure Law - Sign and Seal Requirements
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State legislature and engineering licensing board
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure Statute - Sign and Seal and Supervision Requirements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:09:15.613686+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
textreferences: Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
textreferences: Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
usedby: Engineer B, State Board
usedincontext: Provides the legal framework governing Engineer B's obligation to personally review and take responsibility for engineering drawings before affixing his professional seal, and establishes the legal basis for potential State Board action
version: Applicable state statute
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.731680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

State Engineering Practice Act
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State legislature
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Practice Act (generic reference)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:10:06.141722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: This also shows Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a).
textreferences: This also shows Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a).
textreferences: While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility.
usedby: BER in evaluating legal dimensions of Engineer B's and Engineer Intern C's conduct
usedincontext: Referenced as the legal framework establishing licensure requirements and defining lawful engineering practice; cited in relation to Engineer B's unlawful sealing of documents and Engineer Intern C's protection from legal censure as an unlicensed intern
version: Current applicable state version
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.730045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Structural Failure Occurs
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Structural Failure Public Safety Escalation Constraint - Engineer R Unbuilt Portions
type: StructuralFailurePublicSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R's review revealed serious design errors not only in the failed basement but also in portions of the structure not yet built, creating ongoing public safety risk if construction were to proceed on those portions without redesign.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Structural Failure Public Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having discovered through independent review that unbuilt portions of Engineer A's office building contained serious structural design errors in addition to the failed basement, was required to immediately escalate those findings to all relevant parties — including Engineer A, Engineer B, and if necessary the State Board — prohibiting limitation of response to the failed basement alone.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Independent Engineering Review Standard; Public Safety Paramount Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
temporalscope: From completion of Engineer R's independent review
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Structural Failure Unbuilt Portion Escalation Constraint - Engineer R Discovery
type: StructuralFailureUnbuiltPortionEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R was retained to conduct an independent structural assessment after the failure of Engineer A's office building basement and discovered incompetent design and construction documents produced under Engineer B's seal, with knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer B's impaired practice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Structural Failure Unbuilt Portion Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having discovered through independent review that Engineer B's design and construction documents were incompetent and that the structural failure was caused by design errors, was required to escalate findings regarding unbuilt portions of the structure containing serious design errors to all relevant parties — including the client, Engineer B, and if necessary the State Board — prohibiting limitation of response to the failed portion alone.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.f, III.7; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: The facts reveal it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents.
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer R's discovery of incompetent design documents and the structural failure
textreferences: Further, in the aftermath of Engineer R's discovery, it is reasonable to think Engineer R was informed of Engineer B's impairment due to a stroke, and also the series of actions by Engineer B and Engineer Intern C that followed.
textreferences: The facts reveal it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Violated By Engineer Intern C
type: SubordinateComplicityProhibitioninUnlicensedorIncapacitatedSupervision
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer Intern C's performance of structural design under Engineer B's nominal seal
balancingwith: Employment loyalty to Engineer B
balancingwith: Financial dependence on continued employment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern C, fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition, cooperated in an arrangement to perform all substantive structural engineering design under the nominal seal of an engineer who could not provide genuine direction, review, or supervision
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:58:37.875161+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Awareness of Engineer B's impairment created an independent ethical obligation for Engineer Intern C to refuse cooperation and report the arrangement; the intern status did not eliminate ethical culpability
invokedby: Engineer Intern C Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
principleclass: Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
sourcetext: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review.
tensionresolution: Ethical culpability attaches to knowing participation in impaired supervisory arrangement regardless of subordinate status; intern must refuse and report
textreferences: Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
textreferences: Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review.
textreferences: Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.727370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting - Engineer R Structural Review Findings
type: Third-PartyDiscoveryIndependentReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R's independent review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors under Engineer B's seal, and Engineer R learned of the circumstances of Engineer B's post-stroke impaired practice, creating an independent reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having been retained by Engineer A to conduct an independent structural review and having discovered serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details under Engineer B's seal — along with the circumstances of Engineer B's post-stroke impaired practice — was independently obligated to report those findings to the State Board, regardless of whether Engineer A chose to report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T04:16:01.757015+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Independent Engineering Review Standard; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer R completed the independent review and discovered the scope of Engineer B's violations
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.693654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint - Engineer R State Board
type: Third-PartyDiscoveryIndependentReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R was retained by Engineer A to conduct an independent review after the structural failure and discovered incompetent design documents produced under Engineer B's seal, with knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer B's impaired practice and Engineer Intern C's complicity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having been retained by Engineer A to conduct an independent structural review and having discovered evidence of serious professional misconduct and impaired practice by Engineer B, was independently obligated to report those findings to the State Board regardless of whether Engineer A chose to report, establishing that Engineer R's independent professional obligations were not discharged by Engineer A's private confrontation with or compassionate non-reporting of Engineer B.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:53:51.599914+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.f; BER Case 17-7
sourcetext: Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
temporalscope: From the time of Engineer R's discovery of Engineer B's violations
textreferences: Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
textreferences: The facts reveal it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.725941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint - Engineer R Structural Assessment
type: Third-PartyDiscoveryIndependentReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R's independent review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors for both the failed basement and unbuilt portions of the structure, and Engineer R learned of Engineer B's post-stroke impaired practice arrangement with Engineer Intern C.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having been retained by Engineer A to conduct an independent review and having discovered serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details — as well as the circumstances of Engineer B's post-stroke impaired practice — was independently obligated to report those findings to the State Board, regardless of whether Engineer A chose to report.
discoveredincase: 16
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 16
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T11:47:39.164903+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 17-7; Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard; Independent Engineering Review - Engineer R's Structural Assessment
sourcetext: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
temporalscope: From the completion of Engineer R's independent review through the period of non-reporting by Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure.
textreferences: Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
wasattributedto: Case 16 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:21.722394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

Wife Assumes Business Control
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.698977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

completion of construction drawings and permit issuance before contractor beginning construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

contractor beginning construction before significant structural failure during basement construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

private meeting between Engineer A and Engineer B before Engineer A's decision not to report Engineer B to the State Board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction

significant structural failure before Engineer A retaining Engineer R for independent review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T12:12:22.699387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 16 Extraction