Singh v. N.Y. State Dept. of Health Bd. of Prof'l Med. Conduct

• Decision Date: 03 June 2010
• Citation: 903 N.Y.S.2d 181,74 A.D.3d 1391
• Parties: In the Matter of Kirnjot SINGH, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

903 N.Y.S.2d 181
74 A.D.3d 1391

In the Matter of Kirnjot SINGH, Petitioner,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 3, 2010.

903 N.Y.S.2d 182

Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera & Cinquemani, P.C., Seaford (Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (George A. Alvarez of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, SPAIN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.

GARRY, J.

74 A.D.3d 1391

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c[5] ) to review a determination of the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York.

Petitioner, a physician and spinal surgeon licensed to practice in Indiana and New York, saw a new female patient in Indiana in October 2005. The medical records reveal that upon examination, petitioner transferred the patient's care to another physician and advised that he could do nothing else and would see her on an as-needed basis. Later that day, the patient returned to petitioner's office to discuss a possible employment opportunity involving the patient offering massage therapy services at a new hospital. She reentered the facility through a back door and returned to the examination room, where she and petitioner engaged in a sexual encounter.

The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana conducted disciplinary proceedings in which, among other things, it found the facts set out above, determined that petitioner had committed misconduct, placed him on indefinite probation, and ordered him to comply with various requirements, including a continuing education class on patient boundaries. In expedited referral proceedings pursuant to Public Health Law § 230(10)(p), the Bureau for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter BPMC) thereafter charged petitioner with two specifications of misconduct, first on the basis of having been found guilty of

74 A.D.3d 1392

improper professional practice or professional misconduct in Indiana and, second, on having his license suspended upon the disciplinary proceeding instituted in Indiana, where the conduct upon which both the finding and proceeding were based would have constituted misconduct in New York had it occurred here ( see Education Law § 6530[9][b], [d] ).¹ Following a hearing at which petitioner appeared without counsel,² a Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional

903 N.Y.S.2d 183

Medical Conduct sustained the charges against him and revoked his license to practice medicine in New York. Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter ARB), which affirmed the Hearing Committee's determination and upheld the license revocation.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking annulment of the ARB determination, contending that he was deprived of due process because the determination to revoke his license was improperly based on uncharged misconduct. The uncharged matters consisted of eight accusations made against him in Indiana that did not lead to disciplinary proceedings. They were brought to the attention of the Hearing Committee when petitioner submitted a letter from a physicians'...