Wolkoff v. Chassin, 89 N.Y.2d 244 (1996)
When a statute establishes a board or body with a specified number of members, the quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies unless the statute explicitly indicates a different quorum requirement was intended.
Summary
This case addresses whether a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) is valid when made by a quorum of its members, specifically three physician members without the two lay members. The New York Court of Appeals held that the quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies because the Public Health Law does not explicitly require all five members to participate in every case. Therefore, the ARB’s determination was valid. This ruling streamlines agency procedures and avoids imposing unreasonable burdens on bodies with specific membership requirements.
Facts
Dr. Wolkoff, a licensed physician in New York, faced charges of professional misconduct based on disciplinary actions in Utah and California. His license to prescribe controlled substances in Utah was suspended, and his California medical license was revoked after he admitted to prescribing excessive amounts of controlled substances to drug-dependent individuals. A Hearing Committee sustained the charges and suspended Dr. Wolkoff’s New York license. Both Dr. Wolkoff and the Office of Professional Medical Conduct appealed to the ARB. The ARB, with only its three physician members participating, sustained the finding of misconduct but revoked Dr. Wolkoff’s license instead of suspending it.
Procedural History
Dr. Wolkoff filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding for judicial review. The Appellate Division granted the petition, annulled the ARB’s determination, and remitted the matter for de novo review, arguing that all five ARB members must participate. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the determination of the Administrative Review Board (ARB) is invalid because it was rendered by only three of its five members, specifically without the participation of the two lay members required by Public Health Law § 230-c.
Holding
No, because the quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies to the ARB, and that law only requires a majority of the whole number of members for a valid quorum.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that General Construction Law § 41, which states that a majority of a body constitutes a quorum, applies unless the statute creating the body explicitly indicates otherwise. Public Health Law § 230-c specifies the composition of the ARB (three physicians, two laypersons) and requires a majority concurrence for determinations but is silent on the number of members required to consider a case. The court noted that when the Legislature intends to depart from General Construction Law § 41, it does so explicitly, citing Education Law §§ 202, 205 and ECL 57-0119 as examples. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind streamlining the physician disciplinary process was to improve efficiency and reduce delays. Requiring participation from every category of member on every board action would impose an “unreasonable burden” on numerous state bodies. Therefore, the court concluded that because a majority of the ARB members considered Dr. Wolkoff’s case, the determination was valid. The court emphasized, “Given the absence of any clear indication that the Legislature intended otherwise, the quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies to decisions of the ARB.”