The problem with professional misconduct is that the punishment for misconduct is issued by members of the same profession. As a result, the failing professional is more often than not given conditions that are seldom complied with.
I Matter of Muneer Imam v New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct et al. 2020 NY Slip Op 08138, 529258, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (31 December 2020) The Appellate Division was asked to review a decision of the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which revoked Muneer Imams licensed to practice medicine in New York. ARB concluded that because the petitioner "had already received disciplinary sanctions that should have deterred [him] from further conduct", "allowed [him] to retain his [l] ice after his latest mistake had made a mockery of the review system."  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner was granted permission to practice medicine in New York in 1984. In 2016, the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct accused the petitioner of committing professional misconduct by practicing negligence on more than one occasion and failing to maintain proper patient records. Accepting that he failed to defend himself against "at least one of the allegations of misconduct", the petitioner consented to the respondent State Board of Professional Medical Conduct.The consent decision, which entered into force on April 12, 2016, introduced a 36-month suspension of his medical license, which stayed during a 36-month probationary period, that is say no real repeal. The terms of the petitioner's terms required, inter alia, that he "only practice medicine when supervised by a licensed doctor, board certified with the appropriate specialty", and that the petitioner maintain a certain level of insurance coverage for medical malpractice.
Subsequently, the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) accused the petitioner of violating the terms of his test. A committee of the Board of Professional Medical Conduct found that the petitioner "did not comply with the conditions of probation" and introduced a six-month suspension of the petitioner's medical condition, followed by a three-year probation and a $ 18,000 civil penalty. Upon review, ARB confirmed the Interrogation Committee's decision that the petitioner had committed a professional error but revoked the sentence, instead revoking the petitioner's license.
ARB has the power to impose a harsher punishment than the interrogation committee, and such a punishment will only be disturbed if it is so disproportionate to the crime that it is shocking to one's sense of justice. The fact that patient care was not involved does not preclude the revocation of the petitioner's license.
The petitioner admitted that he continued to practice medicine from May 2016 to January 2017, despite the fact that he had no internship supervisor or redundant insurance policy in place during that time. . ARB and the Interrogation Committee appropriately rejected the petitioner's allegations that he simply misunderstood the terms of the consent decision and that he reasonably believed that he had the right to practice medicine while trying to meet the requirements for a practice monitor and surplus insurance.
Although no patients were injured, the petitioner endangered his patients by circumventing the probationary conditions intended to protect them. Furthermore, the petitioner had been subject to review after being found guilty of misconduct in 1993 and he violated his review in 2016 by ignoring the most important provisions immediately after concluding the agreement. Since the petitioner had already received disciplinary sanctions twice, the fact of the previous discipline should have deterred him from further misconduct and that allowing him to retain his license after his most recent misconduct would ridicule the review system.
Therefore, the Appeals Division concluded that the ARB did not do anything wrong when it revoked the petitioner's license to practice medicine. patients without the supervision of a licensed physician, board certified in approval special price. For me, the only question is why the board proposed more review and what took ARB so long to recall Dr. Iman's license after he made it clear that he did not intend to comply with the license terms.
© 2020 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to serving as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, fraud and insurance fraud almost equally for policyholders and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.
For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to fight insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurance companies and their claims staff to become insurance claims staff.
Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/ c-262921
Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts  Listen to the podcast: Zalma on Insurance https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episodes Zalma on Insurance
Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg/ [194590gotoinsuranceclaimslibrary-https://zalmacom/blog/insurance-claims-library/ https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGAU%3D     as:  Like  Loading …