Hammonds v. New York State Education Department
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 533351 |
| Citation | 206 A.D.3d 1334,170 N.Y.S.3d 653 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Isaiah HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Law Offices of Leonard A. Sclafani, PC, New York City (Leonard A. Sclafani of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Dustin J. Brockner of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ.
Garry, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, J.), entered February 11, 2021 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent New York State Education Department denying petitioner's application for licensure as a physician assistant.
Petitioner, who obtained a medical doctorate degree from the College of Medicine at American University of Antigua (hereinafter AUA) but is not licensed as a physician in the state, sought licensure by respondent New York State Education Department (hereinafter SED) to practice as a physician assistant (hereinafter PA). In processing his application, SED requested documentation from petitioner that he had graduated from a PA education program and passed the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (hereinafter PANCE). Petitioner, who had not satisfied either requirement, objected to providing those credentials, asserting that his medical doctorate education and successful completion of all four steps of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (hereinafter USMLE) qualified him for a PA license. SED eventually informed petitioner that it did not approve his application, citing his failure to meet the education and examination requirements. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel SED to issue him a PA license. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the merits. Petitioner appeals.
"[A] court's review of administrative actions is limited to the record made before the agency" ( Matter of Pascazi v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 151 A.D.3d 1324, 1326, 57 N.Y.S.3d 234 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Where there was no administrative hearing, the agency may submit an employee's or official's affidavit to explain the information that was before the agency and the rationale for its decision, and courts may consider such an affidavit even though it was not submitted during the administrative process (see Matter of Gesmer v. Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., 194 A.D.3d 180, 184 n. 2, 145 N.Y.S.3d 145 [2021], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1103, 157 N.Y.S.3d 405, 178 N.E.3d 1284 [2021] ; Matter of Weissenburger v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1150, 1152, 64 N.Y.S.3d 374 [2017] ; Matter of Kirmayer v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 24 A.D.3d 850, 852, 805 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2005] ). In contrast, however, expert opinions expressed in affidavits that postdate the agency determination at issue may not be relied upon, as such affidavits were not part of the administrative record (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v. Public Serv. Commn. of the State of N.Y., 192 A.D.3d 1416, 1420, 145 N.Y.S.3d 173 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 914, 2021 WL 5463734 [2021] ).
Supreme Court correctly noted that the affidavits of petitioner and four experts that were submitted with the petition were not before SED when it rendered its determination and, thus, were not part of the record.1 Although petitioner complains that he was unaware of what grounds SED would use to reject his licensure application and, thus, he could not respond with expert opinions before the agency, SED informed petitioner that, at least regarding one portion of its determination, he could submit a response to correct any factual errors before a final determination was rendered regarding an examination waiver. Petitioner did not submit a response. In any event, the court stated that, even if it were to consider those affidavits, the outcome would not change. Considering the standard of review, we agree. In reviewing an agency determination made without a hearing, courts must decide whether the action taken was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (see CPLR 7803[3] ). "If the determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable" ( Matter of Ward v. City of Long Beach, 20 N.Y.3d 1042, 1043, 962 N.Y.S.2d 587, 985 N.E.2d 898 [2013] [citation omitted]).
Petitioner contends that the education he received from AUA in earning his medical degree is the substantial equivalent of education that PA students receive while pursuing their degrees. Pursuant to statute, to qualify for a PA license a person must "submit satisfactory evidence" that he or she "has satisfactorily completed an approved program for the training of physician assistants" ( Education Law § 6541[1][d] ). It is undisputed that petitioner did not attend an SED-approved PA training program. Nevertheless, in such circumstances, "[t]he [C]ommissioner [of Education] is empowered to determine whether an applicant possesses equivalent education and training, such as experience as a nurse or military corpsman, which may be accepted in lieu of all or part of an approved program" ( Education Law § 6541[1][d] ). A regulation provides that, "[i]n lieu of all or part of a registered program for the training of [PAs], the [C]ommissioner may accept evidence of an extensive health[-]oriented education and of appropriate experience and training" and may require the applicant "to make up any deficiencies in education or experience prior to licensure" ( 8 NYCRR 60.8 [b][3]).
"In reviewing professional education programs[, SED] may consider and use the standards of nationally recognized accrediting organizations in the professions to the extent such standards are satisfactory to [SED]" ( 8 NYCRR 52.3 [b]). In comparing the education petitioner received at AUA with approved PA programs, SED relied upon standards set by the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant, Inc., a not-for-profit organization that is the only accrediting body in the country for PA programs. Because those standards define terms, learning outcomes and competencies as relating specifically to PA education and practice, SED concluded that virtually the entire educational program must be oriented to PA practice to meet those standards. Although AUA's medical doctorate program fulfilled most of the standards relating to content areas and medical knowledge, SED determined that the program did not meet standards unique to PA practice. An affidavit by SED's Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Professions detailed 11 PA education standards that petitioner's education failed to meet, as well as six additional education standards that, based on AUA syllabi and provided materials, SED determined that AUA did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation
-
Robins v. N.Y.C. Office of Chief Med. Exam'r
...such an affidavit even though it was not submitted during the administrative process" ( Matter of Hammonds v. New York State Educ. Dept., 206 A.D.3d 1334, 1334–1335, 170 N.Y.S.3d 653 [3d Dept. 2022] ). In her affirmation, "the medical examiner set forth a reasonable basis for [her] determin......