Zane v. Bane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zane v. Bane

215 A.D.2d 768, 627 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 768 (Zane v. Bane) 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

Zane v. Bane, 215 A.D.2d 768, 627 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated July 9, 1995, which, after a hearing, excluded the petitioner from participating in the Medicaid program for a period of two years.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent proffered substantial evidence that the petitioner, a podiatrist, had billed Medicaid for debridement of the nail tissue of the feet of a Medicaid investigator when, in fact, he had not cut or otherwise altered the investigator’s nails but had merely prescribed antifungal medication. Accordingly, we confirm the respondent’s determination that the petitioner violated 18 NYCRR 515.2 (b) (1) (i) (a) and (2) (i) by billing Medicaid for services that he did not perform.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated July 9, 1995, which, after a hearing, excluded the petitioner from participating in the Medicaid program for a period of two years.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent proffered substantial evidence that the petitioner, a podiatrist, had billed Medicaid for debridement of the nail tissue of the feet of a Medicaid investigator when, in fact, he had not cut or otherwise altered the investigator’s nails but had merely prescribed antifungal medication. Accordingly, we confirm the respondent’s determination that the petitioner violated 18 NYCRR 515.2 (b) (1) (i) (a) and (2) (i) by billing Medicaid for services that he did not perform.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 768, 627 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zane-v-bane-nyappdiv-1995.