Brown v. New York State Dept. of Health

• Decision Date: 30 January 1997
• Citation: 652 N.Y.S.2d 860,235 A.D.2d 957
• Parties: In the Matter of Stanley BROWN, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 860

652 N.Y.S.2d 860

235 A.D.2d 957

In the Matter of Stanley BROWN, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Jan. 30, 1997.

Beck, Salvi, Gewurz & Strauss (Leland Stuart Beck, of counsel), Garden City, for petitioner.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General (Kay-Ann D. Porter, of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

WHITE, Justice.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c [5] ) to review a determination of the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York.

In May 1995, the Office of Professional Medical Conduct filed three specifications of professional misconduct against petitioner, a licensed physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, stemming from his treatment of four patients (hereinafter patients A, B, C, D). Following an evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Committee on Professional Misconduct (hereinafter Committee) found petitioner guilty of practicing with negligence on more than one occasion in the treatment of patients A and C due to his failure to diagnose their ectopic pregnancies, practicing fraudulently and failing to keep accurate records with respect to patient A. The specifications involving patients B and D were not sustained. Based on these findings and the prior disciplinary action against petitioner, wherein he was found guilty of practicing with negligence on more than one occasion because of his failure to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, his performance of an incomplete abortion and his failure to examine fetal tissue, the Committee revoked his license. Upon administrative appeal, the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter ARB) sustained the Committee's determinations, including its revocation of petitioner's license. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner urges us to annul the ARB's determination on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. This argument is flawed because the proper standard of review is whether the ARB's determination was arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Lombardo v. De Buono, 233 A.D.2d 789, 650 N.Y.S.2d 423, 426; Matter of Gottesman v. New York State Dept. of Health, 229 A.D.2d 742, 743, 645 N.Y.S.2d 609, 611). Under this standard, our inquiry is whether the administrative determination has a rational basis supported by fact (see, Matter of Chua v. Chassin, 215 A.D.2d 953, 954-955, 627 N.Y.S.2d 152, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 708, 634 N.Y.S.2d 441, 658 N.E.2d 219). In making this inquiry we will not decide credibility issues or weigh the testimony of expert witnesses, as these issues are solely within the province of the administrative fact finder (see, Matter of Brigham v. De Buono, 228 A.D.2d 870, 874, 644 N.Y.S.2d 413, 416, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 801, 653 N.Y.S.2d 278, 675 N.E.2d 1231).

The only...