Opinion
May 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan Lobis, J.].
Substantial evidence supports respondent's findings that the medical necessity of the random orders it reviewed was not fully and properly documented in petitioner's patients' medical records (see, Matter of Lalani v. Bane, 199 A.D.2d 80). Nor did petitioner overcome the presumption of validity of the statistical sampling method employed by respondent in determining the amount of restitution for overpayments that respondent is entitled to recover (supra). Under the circumstances, the five year exclusion of petitioner from the program is not shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Adrien v. Kaladjian, 199 A.D.2d 57).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.