Opinion ID: 2022006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Matter of Mayer:

Text: Dr. Paul S. Mayer, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, was charged with numerous specifications of professional misconduct. At the outset of the evidentiary hearing before the professional conduct committee, Mayer objected to its three-member composition claiming that the lay member could not be a physician's assistant. The ALJ overruled the objection and ordered the hearing to proceed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the committee sustained nine specifications of misconduct and revoked Mayer's license. Mayer then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination. The Court unanimously annulled the determination, granted the petition and remitted the matter to the Board for a new determination. The Court held that [i]n our view, there is merit to the contention that the Hearing Committee was improperly composed of three medical practitioners whose professions are subject to the Public Health Law § 230 disciplinary process, therefore violating the requirement of Public Health Law § 230 (6) that a Hearing Committee `consist of two physicians and one lay member,' and requiring that we annul the determination and remit for a new hearing ( Matter of Mayer v Novello, 288 AD2d 780, 781 [2001] [citing Orens, 284 AD2d at 28]).