From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ross v. Commr. of Edu. of St., N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1990
167 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 1, 1990


Petitioner is a physician licensed to practice in this State. He was charged with a single specification of professional misconduct alleging that he prepared the wrong leg of a patient on which an operation was performed. Petitioner acknowledged that he knew the left leg was to be operated on and prepped the right leg. The sole issue presented is whether this conduct constitutes gross negligence as required for a finding of professional misconduct. The Hearing Committee recommended that petitioner's actions did not rise to the level of gross negligence. The Commissioner of Health, however, recommended a finding of gross negligence with censure and reprimand. The Regents Review Committee unanimously recommended a finding of gross negligence but, by a split vote, recommended that petitioner receive a one-year stayed suspension with probation. The Board of Regents found petitioner guilty of gross negligence and ordered his censure and reprimand. After respondent entered an appropriate order, this proceeding ensued.

In Matter of Spero v. Board of Regents ( 158 A.D.2d 763), we held that the Board's conclusion that the physician who supervised the operation at issue herein had committed gross negligence was rationally based. Likewise here, we cannot say that the Board, which is charged with determining what constitutes gross negligence (see, supra, at 764), acted irrationally in finding that petitioner's conduct in prepping the wrong leg constituted gross negligence. Despite his acknowledged familiarity with the patient's condition, petitioner prepped the wrong leg without alerting any of the other physicians involved. Such conduct certainly can be characterized as "egregious" as required for gross negligence under Education Law § 6509 (2) (see, Matter of Yong-Myun Rho v. Ambach, 74 N.Y.2d 318, 322). We also find the censure and reprimand imposed not to be disproportionate to the misconduct.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Ross v. Commr. of Edu. of St., N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1990
167 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Ross v. Commr. of Edu. of St., N.Y

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HANK ROSS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
563 N.Y.S.2d 199

Citing Cases

Matter of Zalmanov v. Sobol

The undisputed facts as found by respondents pertaining to petitioner's behavior fully comport with Hammer's…

Matter of Stone v. Sobol

We note here that the Court of Appeals has recently determined that a finding of gross negligence requires…