THE POWER OF THE BUREAU FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT WAS SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED IN A RECENTLY REPORTED CASE AND THE DECISION DESERVES MENTION. THE PHYSICIAN WAS CHARGED WITH ELEVEN ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT WITH REGARD TO CARE OF SOME FOUR SEPARATE PATIENTS AND BY A NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 22, WAS INFORMED OF A HEARING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 25TH. SOME SIX DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED DATE THE NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE PHYSICIAN REQUESTED A BRIEF ADJOURNMENT TO BECOME FULLY BRIEFED ON THE MATTER – AND – THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.
ONE ADVANTAGE TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS WOULD BE THAT PARTIES COULD RELY UPON PRECEDENTS IN STRUCTURING THEIR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. HOWEVER – NOW AND THEN COURTS IN DIFFERING JURISDICTIONS REACH CONCLUSIONS ALTHOUGH BASED UPON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. FOLLOWING IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF DIVERGENT FINDINGS. WE HAD TOUCHED UPON THE FOLLOWING MATTER SOME SEEKS AGO BUT IT DESERVES SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF “ACCOUNT STATED-” AN ACTION AT LAW WHICH DATES TO MEDIEVAL DAYS AND IS STILL ALIVE AND FLOURISHING IN TODAY’S EVERYDAY WORLD OF COMMENCE AND LITIGATION.
AS WE KNOW, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RECENTLY VOIDED NEW YORK’S COVID DENSITY RESTRICTIONS AT PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. WITH THIS BACKDROP A REVIEW OF A CASE BROUGHT IN OUR STATE COURT IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.
THE EXTENT AND AUTHORITY OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL WAS THE SUBJECT OF A RECENT DECISION RENDERED IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT AND SHOULD BE OF INTEREST AS AN OVERALL REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S POWER, (OR LACK THEREOF).
