Opinion
August 1, 1961
Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the Board of Regents which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine upon findings of fraud or deceit in such practice and of unprofessional conduct (Edu-two occasions in connection with the general investigation. His subsequent ation Law, § 6514, subd. 2, pars. [a], [g]); in that, in order to enhance claims for alleged personal injuries, petitioner issued false and fraudulent medical reports and bills to two lawyers, I. Frank Miller and Jack Sterngass, in various separate transactions with each; supplied to Miller blank sheets of his letterhead to enable Miller to prepare and issue false and fraudulent reports and bills; and entered into an agreement with each of said attorneys to issue false and fraudulent reports and bills for persons whom the attorney should send to petitioner. The pattern of the misconduct found is similar to that appearing in cases of other physicians involved with Miller upon which we have recently passed ( Matter of Shaw v. Board of Regents, 13 A.D.2d 589; Matter of Wasserman v. Board of Regents, 13 A.D.2d 591), stemming from the investigation directed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. (See Shaw, supra, and cases there cited.) Thus, upon a report concerning one Schein and bearing petitioner's concededly genuine signature, numerous injuries were detailed and 31 office visits and 9 house calls were listed, with total charges of $218; but Mrs. Schein testified that she had never seen petitioner. With respect to certain other clients of Miller, petitioner denied the genuineness of his signature upon various medical reports rendered upon his letterhead, with substantial charges for services. As to three of these there was proof that petitioner had never seen them and had seen two of the others, when sent by Miller, but once or twice. Petitioner's concededly genuine signature appeared upon reports relating to three clients of Sterngass, each report listing serious injuries, and substantial medical charges being made in each case. Each of these persons denied that he had sustained the injuries reported. One of them said that he had never seen petitioner and each of the others testified that he had seen petitioner but once, when going to his office at Sterngass' direction and there describing to petitioner a number of fictitious injuries as to which Sterngass had instructed him. Prior to the proceeding under review, petitioner had given evidence on testimony upon the hearing of the charges was evasive in the extreme and as to many essential issues was hopelessly contradictory and clearly incredible. The record amply warrants the board's action and fully supports the measure of punishment imposed. Accordingly, the determination is confirmed, without costs. On the assumption, however doubtful, that the additional application to remit might properly be entertained we have considered it. It appears devoid of merit and is denied, without costs. Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.