Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4588-12T2 DOCKET NO. A-5084-12T2
03-06-2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE MEDICAL LICENSE OF M.M., M.D. IN THE MATTER OF THE MEDICAL LICENSE OF A.S., M.D.
S.G., appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (Shirley P. Dickstein, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondents M.M. and A.S. have not filed a brief.
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Higbee. On appeal from the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. S.G., appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (Shirley P. Dickstein, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondents M.M. and A.S. have not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
In these two matters, which we have consolidated for the purposes of this opinion, complainant S.G. appeals from the decisions of the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (BME), which, after an investigation, found that no cause existed to bring disciplinary action against doctors, M.M. and A.S. The BME made its decision after M.M. and A.S. submitted certifications, which provided the basis for S.G. being committed to the Special Treatment Unit as a sexually violent predator. The State, on behalf of the BME, argues that S.G. has no right to appeal these decisions. We agree and dismiss both appeals.
The lack of a right to appeal under these circumstances is clearly set forth in Marques v. N.J. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 264 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1993). There, where the BME found a complainant's allegations against two doctors were without sufficient evidence, we held "[t]he authority of the Board to investigate complaints such as that made by appellant is entirely discretionary." Id. at 418 (citing Beck v. Bluestein, 194 N.J. Super. 247, 257-58 (App. Div. 1984)). "'The statute [granting authority to conduct investigations] is clearly permissive, and there is no statutory or regulatory requirement which either mandates an investigation be conducted or an investigatory record be made, maintained or kept.'" Ibid. (quoting Beck, supra, 194 N.J. Super. at 258).
In Marques, supra, we continued that an:
[a]ppellant's right to bring his complaint to the attention of the Board is clear. Indeed, the Legislature has ensured that any such action, if taken in good faith and without malice, will not result in civil liability. See N.J.S.A. 45:9-19.1. However, the right to bring a complaint to the attention of the Board does not carry
with it a right to judicial review of the Board's response to that complaint. In fact, no such right exists . . . One does not have a right of appeal unless a decision affects him adversely. See In re Lazarus, 81 N.J. Super. 132, 136 (App. Div. 1963). "Such an adverse judgment must affect either a personal or pecuniary interest, or a property right." Ibid. As we noted in Lazarus, the function of the investigation was not to remedy any grievance that appellant might have with the doctors, but to investigate whether the continuing activities of the doctors (or either of them) might harm the public interest.
[264 N.J. Super. at 418.]
This has been the law for over twenty years. Thus, although we find that S.G. had a right to file his complaints against M.M. and A.S., he has no right to appeal the BME's decisions.
Both appeals are dismissed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION