MATTER OF DOLIN v. STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT
| Decision Date | 27 July 2000 |
| Citation | 274 A.D.2d 862,711 N.Y.S.2d 261 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of MICHAEL G. DOLIN, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT, Respondent. |
Mercure, J. P.
In 1995, petitioner, a physician, admitted that he had violated various provisions of the Public Health Law by overprescribing Precoset, a controlled substance, to his wife and consented to respondent's entry of an order placing him on probation for four years. The consent order required petitioner to, among other things, (1) notify the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter OPMC) of any employment or practice of medicine in which he was engaged, (2) obtain a practice monitor approved in advance by OPMC to oversee his prescribing, dispensing, inventorying and wasting of controlled substances, (3) notify OPMC prior to engaging in the practice of medicine, (4) conduct himself in a manner befitting his professional status and conform fully to the moral and professional standards of conduct imposed by law and by his profession, and (5) comply with all terms of his probation. Petitioner relocated to North Carolina in July 1995 and his probation was therefore tolled until his return to the practice of medicine in New York in early 1997.
In August 1998, OPMC charged petitioner with 18 specifications of professional misconduct based upon alleged violations of the 1995 consent order. Specifically, petitioner was charged with one count of professional misconduct by reason of having been found guilty of improper professional misconduct by another State, one count of professional misconduct by reason of his filing a false statement concerning credentials in an application for hospital privileges, and four charges each of professional misconduct by reason of fraudulent practice, willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with substantial provisions of law governing the practice of medicine, violating terms of probation and moral unfitness. Following a hearing, a Hearing Committee of respondent sustained each of the 18 charges of professional misconduct and imposed the penalty of revocation of petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York, a determination challenged by petitioner in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Initially, we reject the contention that the penalty imposed, i.e., revocation of petitioner's license to practice medicine, was excessive. It is settled law that the penalty imposed by an administrative agency will be upheld unless it is "so disproportionate to the violation sustained as to shock one's sense of fairness" (Matter of Corines v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 267 AD2d 796, 800, lv denied 95 NY2d 756). Here, the Hearing Committee sustained each of the 18 specifications of professional misconduct finding that petitioner received a reprimand from the North Carolina Medical Board because he committed fraud before its Board on three separate occasions by falsely representing that he was unaware of any investigation of him by a governmental or medical agency. The Hearing Committee further found that petitioner engaged in the practice of medicine in violation of the terms and conditions of his consent order in that he failed to provide OPMC with a complete listing of all employment and practice in which he was engaged, failed to obtain a practice monitor approved in advance by OPMC,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Peress v. Admin. Review Bd., 3
...Accordingly, the decision to revoke petitioner's license was not incommensurate to the offense (see, Matter of Dolin v Bureau of Professional Med. Conduct, 274 A.D.2d 862, 863-865, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 770; Matter of Lawrence v De Buono, 251 A.D.2d 700, We have considered and rejected petiti......
-
Kulik v. Zucker
...to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Dolin v. State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 274 A.D.2d 862, 863–864, 711 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393 [2000] ; Matter of Saldanha v. DeBuono, 256 A.D.2d at 936, 681 N.Y......
-
Cherisme-Theophile v. Dep't of Health
...for it (see Matter of Kulik v. Zucker, 144 A.D.3d 1217, 1218–1219, 40 N.Y.S.3d 658 [2016] ; Matter of Dolin v. State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 274 A.D.2d 862, 864, 711 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393 [2000] ; Matter of Saldanha v. De B......
-
In the Matter of Maria Elena Fodera v. Daines
...to licensing boards has a direct bearing on the applicant's ability to practice medicine” ( Matter of Dolin v. State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 274 A.D.2d 862, 865, 711 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393 [2000] ). Upon review, we do not f......