Abraham v. Novello

39 A.D.3d 1039, 832 N.Y.S.2d 462
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 19, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 1039 (Abraham v. Novello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abraham v. Novello, 39 A.D.3d 1039, 832 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

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.

Following a hearing before a Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, petitioner, a licensed physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, was found guilty of practicing medicine fraudulently, practicing medicine with negligence on more than one occasion, engaging in conduct in the practice of medicine that evidences moral unfitness to practice medicine, filing a false report, failing to maintain accurate records and suffering from a psychiatric condition which impairs his ability to practice medicine. The Hearing Committee revoked his license. The findings of professional misconduct, as well as the penalty of license revocation, were affirmed by [1040]*1040the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter ARB).

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges the revocation of his medical license. In particular, he claims that the testimony of two expert witnesses was admitted in violation of federal law (i.e., the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and the physician-patient privilege, that this error so permeated the hearing as to render it unfair and that, without their testimony, there is no evidence in the record supporting license revocation such that this penalty shocks one’s sense of fairness. Assuming, without deciding, that an error occurred in the admission of the challenged testimony, we are nevertheless unpersuaded by petitioner’s arguments.

Uncontested findings of fact against petitioner establish that he initiated sexual contact with a patient suffering from anxiety and depression on the same day that he was treating her for an abortion, that he thereafter maintained a sexual relationship with this patient for five months, which included having intercourse in his office and a local hospital, that he forced this patient to have intercourse on one occasion and that he thereafter lied to a Department of Health investigator by denying the existence of this sexual relationship.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chatelain v. New York State Department of Health
48 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.3d 1039, 832 N.Y.S.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-v-novello-nyappdiv-2007.