163 A.D.2d 935 (1990)
A prior administrative determination can have a collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent professional misconduct proceeding if the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.
Summary
This case concerns a physician, Dr. Choe, whose license was suspended based on findings from a prior Department of Social Services (DSS) proceeding regarding unacceptable care and inappropriate treatment of Medicaid recipients. The Commissioner of Education invoked collateral estoppel, preventing Dr. Choe from relitigating the DSS findings. The court held that collateral estoppel was properly applied because Dr. Choe failed to demonstrate that he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the DSS proceeding. The court affirmed the suspension of Dr. Choe’s license.
Facts
Dr. Choe, a licensed physician, was found by the Department of Social Services (DSS) to have provided an unacceptable level of care and inappropriate treatment to Medicaid recipients. The DSS also found that he failed to state diagnoses, ordered excessive lab tests, and engaged in unacceptable practices. As a result, DSS revoked Dr. Choe’s Medicaid eligibility after a full administrative hearing. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Education initiated proceedings against Dr. Choe’s medical license based on the DSS findings.
Procedural History
The Department of Social Services (DSS) revoked Dr. Choe’s Medicaid eligibility. The Board of Regents Review Committee (RRC) adopted the DSS findings and suspended Dr. Choe’s medical license, invoking collateral estoppel. Dr. Choe then initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the RRC’s decision, arguing he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the DSS proceedings. The Appellate Division affirmed the RRC decision. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regents Review Committee properly invoked collateral estoppel to prevent Dr. Choe from challenging the findings of the Department of Social Services in a proceeding regarding his medical license.
Holding
Yes, because Dr. Choe failed to meet his burden of proving that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision of the Department of Social Services.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that collateral estoppel applies when an issue was clearly raised and decided in a prior proceeding, even if the tribunals or causes of action differ. The court cited Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71, stating that collateral estoppel requires “an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and * * * there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling.” The party opposing collateral estoppel has the burden of proving that they did not have a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior decision. The court noted that Dr. Choe had the opportunity to demonstrate that he lacked a full and fair opportunity by addressing factors such as the nature of the forum, the importance of the claim, the incentive to litigate, the competence of counsel, and the foreseeability of future litigation. The court found that Dr. Choe failed to demonstrate a conflict of interest with his counsel, lacked sufficient incentive to litigate, or that he was denied an opportunity to present evidence. The court further noted, “Thus, petitioner had the opportunity and ample reason to forcefully defend himself at the DSS proceeding and, in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise, we conclude that he did so.” The court also found that the expedited proceeding was appropriate under Public Health Law §230 [10] [m] [iv] because the DSS findings were equated with violations of Education Law § 6509 (2) and (9).