 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffreys v. Griffin10/31/2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
(*1)
(*2) The issue before us is whether the factual determination of the Hearing Committee of the New York State Department of Health's Board of Professional Medical Conduct (the Medical Board), which revoked defendant doctor's license to practice medicine, collaterally estopped defendant from litigating the issue of liability with respect to plaintiff's civil cause of action for assault and battery. Under the particular circumstances of this case, I conclude that the defendant is entitled to a trial.
Defendant was a gastroenterologist who had treated plaintiff, his patient, for the stomach disorders gastritis and hyperacidity, and depression for several years. Between 1992 and 1994, plaintiff visited defendant at his medical office two or three times annually, during which time she complained that difficulties with her landlord, and her eventual eviction, caused her stress. On at least one occasion, in 1994, he recommended that she seek psychiatric help which, however, she declined to do. Plaintiff claimed that during a scheduled January 1995 endoscopy and upper colonoscopy, defendant orally sodomized her while she was under sedation. On the basis of her claim, defendant was indicted and convicted of sodomy in the first degree and falsifying business records. Defendant's conviction eventually was overturned by this Court on April 2, 1998 upon the ground that prosecutorial misconduct had deprived the defendant of a fair trial (242 AD2d 70, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 955). As a consequence of that reversal, trial evidence and conclusions based thereon derived from the first criminal trial, whether compelling or not, to which the dissent alludes, would not properly be a basis for our current analysis. The crucial point is that notwithstanding the charges made and evidence proffered on retrial, defendant was acquitted of all criminal charges.
After his conviction and prior to our reversal, defendant was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding before the Medical Board. As a consequence of that proceeding, defendant's license to practice medicine was revoked by an order and determination dated October 24, 1996. The Hearing Panel, in addition to the sexual misconduct claims, had also considered charges relating to the preparation of false chart entries and other record keeping (*3)errors. Present plaintiff appeared as a witness at the hearing. Although all three members of the Hearing Panel found an adequate basis for revocation of defendant's medical license, only two found against defendant, with one finding for defendant, on the claim of sexual impropriety. The fact finding, by the panel, alluded to at least the possibility that plaintiff had psychiatric problems, and some pharmacological evidence was introduced that medication may have affected her ability to recall the immediate aftermath of the medical procedure.
Plaintiff commenced the present civil action for damages allegedly arising from assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By order dated April 2, 1997, Supreme Court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability, based on defendant's conviction, as to the first cause of action sounding in assault and battery, but directed that trial be conducted on a related emotional distress claim insofar as the conviction was not dispositive regarding the requisite intent. The court noted that the parties had not yet been deposed. Hence, whether or not cross-examination was conducted at the criminal trial or even in the administrative hearing is not relevant to the question of whether there was adequate discovery in the pre
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|