MATTER OF PISNANONT v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

Decision Date04 November 1999
Citation697 N.Y.S.2d 724,266 A.D.2d 592
PartiesIn the Matter of PETER P. PISNANONT, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Mugglin, J.

Respondent Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter the ARB) sustained the findings, determination and penalty of a Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter the Committee) which found that petitioner committed professional misconduct as defined in Education Law § 6530 (8) and (29). We confirm the determination of the ARB.

In June 1993, respondent State Board for Professional Medical Conduct suspended petitioner's medical license for one year after determining that he had forged signatures in conjunction with a job application and had falsified letters of prescription intended for his own use. The Committee stayed the suspension because of petitioner's career and family problems. The stay, however, was contingent upon petitioner continuing his previous involvement with the Committee for Physician's Health (hereinafter CPH) for evaluation and treatment for a period of time to be set by CPH.

Subsequently, the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct brought professional misconduct charges against petitioner pursuant to Education Law § 6530 (8) and (29). The Committee issued its determination stating that revocation was the only appropriate penalty to prevent risk to the public from petitioner's continued medical practice. On appeal the ARB sustained this ruling and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Appellate court review of an ARB sanction is limited to consideration of whether it is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Moran v Chassin, 225 AD2d 814, 815). The standard that governs this Court's review of the ARB determination is whether such decision is "arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Spartalis v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 205 AD2d 940, 942; see, Matter of Moss v Chassin, 209 AD2d 889, 891). Whether a determination is arbitrary or capricious is determined by analyzing whether the particular action taken by the ARB should have been taken or is justified, and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Moss v Chassin, supra, at 891).

Petitioner was charged with violating Education Law § 6530 (8) (having a psychiatric condition which impairs the licensee's ability to practice) from September 1993 forward. While petitioner was under CPH evaluation in 1993, three physicians (Thomas Markowski, Daniel Schwartz and Harriet O'Hagan) found that petitioner was suffering from delusions and paranoia. O'Hagan diagnosed petitioner in May 1993 as delusional and stated that this impediment would affect his functioning and distort his thinking. Zev Labins, a psychiatrist, met with petitioner on a regular basis from September 1993 until April 1994. At the hearing before the Committee,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Khan v. Nys Dept. of Health, 3
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 30 Agosto 2001
    ...decision is "'arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion'" (Matter of Pisnanont v New York State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 266 A.D.2d 592, 593, quoting Matter of Spartalis v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 205 A.D.2d 940, 942, lv denied......
  • Matter of Richstone v. Novello
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 25 Abril 2001
    ...of Dolin v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 274 A.D.2d 862, 863, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 770; Matter of Pisnanont v New York State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 266 A.D.2d 592). Given that petitioner was found to have engaged in fraudulent billing, attempting to coerce a patient in......
  • People v. McCoy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 4 Noviembre 1999
    ...... A.D.2d 589699 N.Y.S.2d 131THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,v.ISAIAH McCOY, ... and that County Court erred in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US ......

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