Sokol v. New York State Dept. of Health
| Decision Date | 11 January 1996 |
| Citation | 223 A.D.2d 809,636 N.Y.S.2d 450 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Abraham I. SOKOL, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Morley and Trager (Leslie Trager, of counsel), New York City, for petitioner.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General (Terryl L. Brown, of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CASEY, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () 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, was convicted of one count of grand larceny in the second degree for defrauding Medicaid of more than $1,000,000. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 1/2 to 10 1/2 years and ordered to pay restitution. As a result of this conviction, petitioner was later charged with professional misconduct (see, Education Law § 6530[9][a][i] ). After a finding of guilt was rendered by a Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter the State Board) and sustained after administrative review, petitioner's license to practice medicine was revoked. Relying on United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a respondent who had already been criminally prosecuted could not also be subjected to a civil sanction when such civil sanction was found to have served solely deterrent or retributive purposes (id., at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902), petitioner contends that the revocation of his license constitutes a second punishment in violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. We disagree.
United States v. Halper (supra ), characterized by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "rare case" (id., at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902), involved a nonphysician who was convicted of filing $585 in fraudulent Medicare claims, sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined $5,000 (id., at 437, 109 S.Ct. at 1902). Subsequent thereto, the Federal government initiated an action pursuant to the Civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3731), which authorized the government, by the remedial formula contained therein, to assess penalties of more than $130,000 against the respondent. In that circumstance, the court found that since the application of the statutory formula was "so disproportionate to the damages caused that it constitute[d] a second punishment" (id., at 450, 109 S.Ct. at 1903), the penalty violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As Halper primarily addressed the inequities yielded by a civil sanction which so disproportionately compensates the government for its costs that it loses its remedial nature and instead "takes on a quality of punishment" (id., at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902), we do not find the principles enunciated therein to preclude the State from instituting an administrative action to discipline a licensed physician subsequent to his conviction of a crime. Clearly, a license revocation hearing serves the traditional purpose of "protect[ing] the public from medical negligence, incompetence or illegal and unethical practices" (Executive Dept. Mem, 1991 McKinney's Session Laws of N.Y., at 2081). Unlike the sanction imposed in Halper, the revocation of a physician's license to practice medicine is intended to be remedial, having a rational relationship to the harm caused. Given the fraudulent and deceitful nature of petitioner's conduct, pursued solely for personal gain through exploitation of the public trust, coupled with the resultant fraud perpetrated upon an already overburdened Medicaid system, we find revocation not to be disproportionate to such conduct (see, Matter of Abbasi v. Chassin, 219 A.D.2d 765, 766, 631...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selkin v. State for Professional Medical Conduct
...v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 226 A.D.2d 935, 640 N.Y.S.2d 924 (3d Dep't 1996) (due process); In re Sokol v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 223 A.D.2d 809, 636 N.Y.S.2d 450 (3d Dep't 1996) (double jeopardy); Block v. Ambach, 140 A.D.2d 814, 528 N.Y.S.2d 204 (3d Dep't 1988), aff'd, 73 N.Y.2d 3......
-
Singla v. New York State Dept. of Health
...instances (see, Matter of Kabnick v. Chassin, 223 A.D.2d 935, 937, 636 N.Y.S.2d 920, 922, supra; Matter of Sokol v. New York State Dept. of Health, 223 A.D.2d 809, 811, 636 N.Y.S.2d 450, 451, appeal dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1054, 644 N.Y.S.2d 146, 666 N.E.2d 1060; Matter of Silberspitz v. Sobol,......
-
Siddiqui v. New York State Dept. of Health
...of the charges against him and was afforded a full opportunity to present evidence (see, Matter of Sokol v. New York State Dept. of Health, 223 A.D.2d 809, 811, 636 N.Y.S.2d 450, 451). Petitioner's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is similarly unavailing. Wh......
-
Papiasvili v. New York State Dept. of Health
...223 A.D.2d 935, 937, 636 N.Y.S.2d 920, affd. 89 N.Y.2d 828, 652 N.Y.S.2d 722, 675 N.E.2d 457; Matter of Sokol v. New York State Dept. of Health, 223 A.D.2d 809, 811, 636 N.Y.S.2d 450, appeal dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1054, 644 N.Y.S.2d 146, 666 N.E.2d 1060; Matter of Abbasi v. Chassin, 219 A.D.2d......
-
Are collateral sanctions premised on conduct or conviction? The case of abortion doctors.
...license is to protect and safeguard the public health, not to punish the physician...."); Sokol v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 636 N.Y.S.2d 450 (App. Div. 1996) (holding physician disciplinary system designed to protect the public), appeal dismissed, 666 N.E.2d 1060 (N.Y. 1996); Haley v. Me......