Shaw, Application of

• Decision Date: 21 March 1961
• Citation: 13 A.D.2d 589,212 N.Y.S.2d 701
• Parties: Application of John A. SHAW, Petitioner, for a review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of the Determination of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Respondent, revoking, annulling and cancelling petitioner's license to practice medicine.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 701

212 N.Y.S.2d 701

13 A.D.2d 589

Application of John A. SHAW, Petitioner, for a review under

Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of the Determination

of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of

New York, Respondent, revoking, annulling and cancelling

petitioner's license to practice medicine.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 21, 1961.

Edward H. Levine, New York City, for appellant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for respondent (Robert W. Bush, Albany, of counsel).

Before BERGAN, P. J., and COON, GIBSON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the Board of Regents.

Petitioner's license to practice medicine has been revoked by the Board of Regents; this proceeding reviews that determination. The problem is twofold; whether there is substantial evidence of a sufficient deviation from the standards of medical practice to warrant discipline; and, if there is, whether the revocation of license was excessive punishment. The essence of the charge against petitioner, which arose as a by-product of the investigation directed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, into irregularities in handling personal injury cases by lawyers, physicians and others, is that he prepared or authorized the preparation of fraudulent medical reports and bills for treatment of persons making personal injury claims. As to the general background of the problem, see (M.) Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 790, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535, appeal denied 4 N.Y.2d 676, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1025, affirmed Anonymous Nos. 6 and 7 v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287, 79 S.Ct. 1157, 3 L.Ed.2d 1234; (S.) Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 792, 170 N.Y.S.2d 538; Anonymous No. 6 v. Arkwright, 6 A.D.2d 719, 176 N.Y.S.2d 227, appeal dismissed 4 N.Y.2d 1034, 177 N.Y.S.2d 687.

A trial was had on the charges against petitioner before the Medical Grievance Committee. It was clearly demonstrated that in the cases of several false medical reports and medical bills submitted by I. Frank Miller, a lawyer, to insurance companies on petitioner's stationery, the signatures of the petitioner were forged. Except for those exhibits there is no direct proof in the record in the form of an exhibit of fraudulent or false reports or bills submitted by the petitioner. Some reports which concededly contained the signature of petitioner were received in evidence for the purpose of showing they were issued in connection with I. Frank Miller, the same lawyer about whom the charges against petitioner evolved, but these were not shown to have been false. Thus petitioner correctly argues in this court that 'Not a single exhibit in evidence which was established to have been false had this petitioner's signature on it. Inversely, those exhibits which Dr. Shaw conceded bore his signature were not shown to have been false nor was any attempt made to prove falsity.'

Nevertheless, we are of opinion that there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of professional misconduct. As to those reports and bills on which petitioner's signatures are shown to have been forged, there is proof that early in the controversy an investigator for the insurance company with which the reports and bills had been filed, visited petitioner and questioned him about these reports and bills which appeared on his letterheads and which purportedly bore his signature. It was established in this record that the petitioner had not treated these patients. The investigator testified that when he showed petitioner photostatic copies of these papers the petitioner said 'that he recalled the individuals referred to, that they were correct, and that the signature was his.' Concerning this testimony, petitioner at the hearing in the proceeding merely testified that 'I don't even remember the names that he asked me about' and as to whether he had told the investigator what the latter had testified he had told him, petitioner said 'I don't remember'.

Close personal relations were conceded by the petitioner with the lawyer Miller who had filed these reports and bills with the insurance company, including the inference established by petitioner that the lawyer had access to his office and stationery, and including the admission that on several...