Sacharoff v. Corsi

Citation62 N.E.2d 81,294 N.Y. 305
PartiesSACHAROFF v. CORSI, Industrial Commissioner, et al. SCHIFFMAN v. SAME.
Decision Date08 October 1945
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

See 66 S.Ct. 60.

Proceeding in the matter of the application of Leo S. Sacharoff against Edward S. Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner, and others, and proceeding in the matter of Emanuel Schiffman against Edward S. Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner, and others. Appeal, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 268 App.Div. 765, 50 N.Y.S.2d 168, entered June 16, 1944, which unanimously affirmed, so far as appealed from, an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Walter, J.; opinion sub nom. Matter of Sacharoff v. Murphy, 182 Misc. 235, 44 N.Y.S.2d 117) entered in New York County, made in a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the revocation by defendants of authority previously granted to petitioner to render medical care under the Workmen's Compensation Law, Consol.Laws, c. 67. The appeal to the Appellate Division was from so much of the Special Term order as annulled the determination of the defendant Abraham S. Goodman, Deputy Industrial Commissioner, revoking the authority of petitioner to render medical care under the Workmen's Compensation Law and directed reinstatement forthwith of petitioner to the panel of doctors authorized to render such medical care. Appeal, in the second above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the same Appellate Division, 268 App.Div. 765, 50 N.Y.S.2d 132, entered the same day, which unanimously affirmed, so far as appealed from, an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (O'Brien, J.), entered in New York County, also made in a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the revocation by defendants of authority previously granted to petitioner to render medical care under the Workmen's Compensation Law, Consol.Laws, c. 67. In this proceeding, the appeal to the Appellate Division was likewise from so much of the Special Term order as annulled the determination of said Deputy Commissioner revoking petitioner's authority to render medical care under the Workmen's Compensation Law and directed reinstatement forthwith of petitioner to the panel of doctors authorized to render such care.

Reversed and proceedings remitted. Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. (Orrin G. Judd, William F. McNulty, and Irving Galt, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants in both proceedings.

Albert Adams, of New York City, for respondents in each proceeding.

LEWIS, Judge.

The process of administering the Workmen's Compensation Law developed the fact that, if the statute was to serve the purpose for which it was designed, there must be available to injured employee-claimants medical care of first quality which is carefully regulated. See Szold v. Outlet Embroidery Supply Co., 274 N.Y. 271, at pages 276, 277, 8 N.E.2d 858, 859. opinion by Loughran, J. To that end the Legislature made statutory provision for the creation of a list of licensed physicians authorized to render such medical care. Workmen's Compensation Law, s 13-b, Consol.Laws, c. 67. The problem common to the two proceedings now before us involves alleged infractions of statutory regulations by the two respondent physicians which led in the first instance to the revocation by the Industrial Commissioner of their authority to render medical care under the statute.

By the present proceedings under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act the respondents secured at Special Term orders annulling on procedural grounds the determinations by which their names had been stricken from the panel of physicians authorized to render medical care to injured claimant-employees. The orders of Special Term were affirmed unanimously at the Appellate Division. We have permitted appeals in the two proceedings which were argued together.

The following events gave rise to the two proceedings: after hearings on notice to the respondent Sacharoff a Deputy Industrial Commissioner found him guilty (1) of violating Workmen's Compensation Law, section 13-d, subdivision 2, paragraph (e), in that he had ‘participated in the division, transference, assignment, rebating, splitting or refunding of a fee’ and (2) of ‘misconduct’ in violation of section 13-d, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), by ‘failing and refusing to take the stand and offer evidence and testimony in connection with an investigation conducted by the Deputy Industrial Commissioner’. In the Schiffman proceeding, following a notice to that respondent that there was to be an investigation, he appeared and testified and thereafter was found guilty (1) of violating section 13-b, subdivision 2, paragraph (e), in that he had ‘participated in the division, transference, assignment, rebating, splitting or refunding of a fee’ and (2) of ‘misconduct’ in violation of section 13-d, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), in that he operated a medical bureau without having secured a medical bureau license. Thereupon the authority of each respondent to render medical care to compensation claimants was revoked.

The determinations so made were annulled at Special Term upon the theory that to avoid discriminatory class legislation the statute, quoted infra, must be construed as having devised a single method of removal in which subdivision 2 of section 13-d was subject to and dependent upon subdivision 1 of the same section. The construction thus placed upon the statute led to a ruling at Special Term that, in the absence of proof that such revocations had been ordered in accord with subdivision 1, after hearings before a medical society or board and upon recommendation by such society or board subject to review by the Industrial Council, the Industrial Commissioner was without statutory power under subdivision 2 to revoke the authorizations under which the respondents had rendered medical care.

The statute with which our problem is concerned section 13-d of the Workmen's Compensation Law, as amended by L.1941, ch. 3071 provides:

‘13-d. Removal of physicians from lists of those authorized to render medical care.

‘1. The medical society or board that has recommended the authorization of physicians to render medical care under this chapter shall investigate, hear and determine all charges of professional or other misconduct by any authorized physician, as herein provided, under rules and procedure to be prescribed by the industrial council of the department of labor and shall report evidence of such misconduct, with their determination thereon, to the commissioner. Such investigation, hearing, report and determination may be made by the board of an adjoining county upon the request of the medical society of the county in which the alleged misconduct or infraction of this chapter occurred. The industrial council of the department may review the determination of such medical society or board, and on application of the physician accused must do so, and may reopen the matter and receive further evidence. The decision and recommendation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Reilly
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 15 Enero 1976
    ...alike under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed (Sacharoff v. Corsi, 294 N.Y. 305, 312, 62 N.E.2d 81, 84, cert. den. 326 U.S. 744, 66 S.Ct. 60, 90 L.Ed. 445; 9 N.Y. Jur., supra, Sec. 297, pg. 199). In applying the Equal Protecti......
  • Lief v. Hynes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 9 Marzo 1979
    ...alike under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed" (Sacharoff v. Corsi, 294 N.Y. 305, 312, 62 N.E.2d 81, 84). In applying the equal protection clause, it has been consistently recognized that this amendment does not deny to states th......
  • Ignizio v. The City Of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 6 Diciembre 2010
  • Ginnan, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • 24 Octubre 1979
    ...alike under like circumstance and conditions, both on the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.' " (Matter of Sacharoff v. Corsi, 294 N.Y. 305, 312, 62 N.E.2d 81, 84). Suspension of civil rights is penal in nature. Historically, "civil death commenced, if any man was banished or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT