Opinion
July 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irving S. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner is a licensed, practicing physician who had been continuously enrolled in the New York Medicaid Program as a provider of medical services to the indigent for over 19 years. In January 1987, the respondent issued a new regulation requiring previous providers to submit an application for reenrollment upon 60 days notice ( 18 NYCRR 504.10). After receiving such notice, the petitioner submitted an application and shortly thereafter, the respondent conducted an on-site peer review of sample records of 10 patients. The petitioner was subsequently notified that the respondent had decided to discontinue his participation as a Medicaid provider pursuant to 18 NYCRR 504.7 (a), which provides that "[a] provider's participation in the program may be terminated by either the provider or the department upon 30 days written notice to the other without cause". The petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a participating physician in New York's Medicaid Program does not have a constitutionally-protected property right to continued participation in the program and, thus, has no right to an evidentiary hearing based on the denial of his reenrollment application (see, Schaubman v. Blum, 49 N.Y.2d 375, 380; Matter of Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Ctr. v. State of New York, 177 A.D.2d 834; Winyard v. Perales, 161 A.D.2d 317, 319; Matter of Barata v Perales, 157 A.D.2d 623, 624).
Moreover, the respondent's determination to deny the application for reenrollment was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The opposing affidavit of Eugenia Kolesnikoff, a registered nurse, and the report of Dr. Robert Matz reviewing 10 patient charts provide specific findings relating to lack of critical information as to the patients' history, physical exam results, and billing issues (see, Matter of Tobon v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 142 Misc.2d 310, 311; see also, Matter of G S Pharmacy v. Perales, 151 A.D.2d 668, 669). The Supreme Court reviewed the petitioner's claims refuting the respondent's findings and accepted the respondent's judgment. There is no reason for this court to find otherwise.
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, 701 Pharmacy Corp. v. Perales, 930 F.2d 163, cert denied ___ US ___, 116 L Ed 2d 42). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.