Caselnova v. New York State Dept. of Health

• Decision Date: 05 May 1998
• Citation: 672 N.Y.S.2d 79,91 N.Y.2d 441,694 N.E.2d 1320
• Parties: , 694 N.E.2d 1320, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 4310 In the Matter of Vito E. CASELNOVA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 79

672 N.Y.S.2d 79

91 N.Y.2d 441, 694 N.E.2d 1320, 1998

N.Y. Slip Op. 4310

In the Matter of Vito E. CASELNOVA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 5, 1998.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, New York City (John W. McConnell, Barbara G. Billet and Peter H. Schiff, of counsel), for appellant.

Vito E. Caselnova, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

TITONE, Judge.

This appeal raises the issue of what conditions the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct can impose on a doctor placed on probation for professional misconduct. The Appellate Division held that certain conditions placed on the physician's probation here, namely, the monitoring by another physician, the review of randomly selected medical records, and the maintenance of a specified level of medical malpractice insurance coverage, were not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Although Public Health Law § 230-a specifically authorizes probation as a penalty for physician misconduct, the court below took a strict view of this statute and held that probation could only be accompanied by conditions specifically mentioned in section 230-a. We reverse and reinstate the agency determination because such a strict interpretation of section 230-a is not warranted and because Public Health Law § 230(18) specifically authorizes the conditions placed on the physician's probation in this case.

The State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (the Board) charged Caselnova, a medical doctor, with professional misconduct pursuant to New York Education Law § 6530(9)(e) and article 33 of the Public Health Law. The Board based the charges on a stipulation by Caselnova, in which he admitted violating regulation 10 NYCRR 80.62(b) by prescribing the drug Vicodin to three patients without preparing and maintaining a complete record for each patient. On September 14, 1995, the Hearing Committee of the Board sustained the charges and found Caselnova guilty of professional misconduct.

The Hearing Committee suspended Caselnova's license to practice medicine for two years, but stayed the suspension, prohibiting him from writing prescriptions for controlled substances for two years and ordering him to "complete 40 hours of continuing medical education in the area of prescribing and dispensing controlled substances." The Hearing Committee also placed Caselnova on probation, requiring that he attend regular meetings with a "monitoring physician" who would review randomly selected medical records from his files to ensure compliance with professional standards. Under Public Health Law § 230(18), having a monitoring physician triggers the requirement that the disciplined physician maintain a specified level of medical malpractice insurance coverage.

After an unsuccessful attempt to appeal to the Administrative Review Board, the Hearing Committee determination was held to be final. Petitioner then commenced the current CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the administrative determination. The Appellate Division modified the determination, sua sponte, holding that the "penalty is, in part, unauthorized by law" (235 A.D.2d 864, 866, 653 N.Y.S.2d 398). The Court stated that the "Hearing Committee was required to impose a penalty under Public Health Law § 230-a (see, Education Law § 6530). This provision does not permit some of the penalties imposed (increasing medical malpractice insurance, monitoring and review of petitioner's records)" (235 A.D.2d 864, 865-866, 653 N.Y.S.2d 398, supra ). This Court granted the State Department of Health's motion for leave to appeal.

This case involves three interrelated statutes: Education Law § 6530, Public Health Law § 230-a, and Public Health Law § 230(18). Education Law § 6530 defines professional misconduct, and provides that "any licensee found guilty of such misconduct under the procedures prescribed in section two hundred thirty of the public health law shall be subject to penalties as prescribed in section two hundred thirty-a of the public health law."

Included among the penalties listed in Public Health Law § 230-a are censure and reprimand; suspension of a license with various specified conditions; suspension of a license for a certain period of time; limitation of a license to a particular practice area; revocation or annulment of a license; fines; and further education or training. Section 230-a also states that the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct may "place the licensee on probation with or without imposition of one of the penalties provided pursuant to this section."

Probation, in turn, is more specifically addressed in Public Health Law § 230(18)(a). This section states: "The director [of the Office of Professional Medical Conduct] shall have the authority to monitor physicians, physician's assistants and specialist's assistants who have been placed on probation pursuant to a determination of professional misconduct by the board" (Public Health Law § 230[18][a] ). Probation, pursuant to section 230(18)(a), can be conditioned on review of "randomly select[ed] office records" to ensure "professional performance" as well as "monitor[ing] the licensee's practice" by another physician or other appropriate monitor. Requiring a monitor also triggers another penalty under section 230(18)(b): the monitored licensee is required to maintain a specified level of medical malpractice insurance coverage.

The Appellate Division determined that some of the conditions of probation imposed here were not specifically listed in ...