Nehorayoff v. Mills, 95 N.Y.2d 671 (2001)
The Board of Regents has broad discretion in deciding whether to restore a medical license, and its decision will be upheld if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious.
Summary
Dr. Nehorayoff, whose medical license was revoked for negligence in performing abortions, sought its restoration. The Board of Regents denied his application, despite favorable recommendations from a Peer Review Committee and the Committee on the Professions, citing the severity of his original misconduct, insufficient remorse, and reservations about his fitness. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that the Board’s decision was rational and within its discretion. The Court emphasized that restoration of a medical license is permissive, not mandatory, and the Board’s decision should only be overturned if it lacks a rational basis. The court held the Appellate Division impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the Board of Regents.
Facts
In 1991, the Board of Regents revoked Dr. Nehorayoff’s medical license due to negligence in performing five abortions, resulting in one patient’s death, and failure to maintain proper records. Eighteen months later, Nehorayoff applied for restoration, citing his recognition of deficiencies and submitting evidence of rehabilitation including course attendance and character references.
Procedural History
The Peer Review Committee recommended staying the revocation and placing Nehorayoff on probation. The Committee on the Professions, though troubled by the original misconduct, recommended restoration with restrictions after obtaining an expert opinion supporting Nehorayoff’s fitness. The Board of Regents rejected this recommendation and denied reinstatement. Nehorayoff then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Supreme Court’s dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Regents abused its discretion in denying Dr. Nehorayoff’s application for restoration of his medical license, despite recommendations for restoration from lower committees.
Holding
No, because the Board of Regents’ determination was supported by a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that Education Law §§ 6510 and 6511 grant the Board of Regents broad discretion in professional misconduct matters, including license restoration. Restoration is permissive and granted rarely, only when the applicant’s merit is clearly established. The applicant bears the burden of proof. The Board is not required to weigh particular factors. The Court stated: “As long as the Board’s determination is supported by a rational basis, and is neither arbitrary nor capricious, it will not be disturbed”. The Appellate Division erred by substituting its judgment and applying an unauthorized “balanced evaluation of factors” standard. The Board’s denial was rational, based on the seriousness of the original misconduct, qualifications expressed by the expert consultant, dissatisfaction with the available supervision, and a perceived lack of appropriate remorse. The court noted that the Board cited the “qualifications expressed by the expert consultant,” whose assessment was admittedly limited by his inability to observe petitioner’s performance. The Court also noted that although the petitioner felt “sad for what happened to the patients,” the Board determined that petitioner’s statements did not reflect an appropriate degree of remorse for his patients. Thus, the Board’s determination was rationally based on the record.