You are here: / / THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT...
,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT PROPERLY REVOKED PETITIONER-RADIATION-ONCOLOGIST’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE; THE BOARD’S EXPERT OPINED THAT PETITIONER’S USE OF HIGHER “CURATIVE” RADIATION DOSES WHEN LOWER “PALLIATIVE” DOSES WERE APPROPRIATE FELL SHORT OF THE RELEVANT STANDARD OF CARE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the Department of Health’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct properly revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine. Petitioner, a radiation oncologist, was found to have deviated from the generally accepted standard of care by administering higher “curative” doses of radiation treatment when lower “palliative” doses were appropriate. The inquiry came down to a battle of experts about what the appropriate standard of care is. The petitioner argued that the Board’s expert improperly relied solely on clinical practice guidelines for that determination:

Petitioner’s contention that the Board’s expert relied solely on clinical practice guidelines overvalues the import of the following testimony:

Counsel: “[W]hat do you mean when you say standard of care?

Expert: “We have accepted guidelines that are published by multiple societies, they include our board, [the] American College of Radiology or [the] American Board of Radiology, [and] national comprehensive cancer networks and these are fairly descriptive, prescriptive guidelines for what a physician should do in the management of cases in very specific areas. When you deviate from those, it is considered to fall short of a standard.”

This answer by the Board’s expert, and others like it, should not be viewed in isolation. The Board’s expert was well-credentialed and had over 30 years of practice in the field of radiation oncology. Rather than merely citing the clinical practice guidelines as being the standard of care, he established the standard of care as he understood it based on his years of seeing patients. For each of the seven patients at issue, the Board’s expert identified the relevant medical and scientific principles underlying the standard of care and provided detailed explanations about why that standard best served patients and why deviating from it risked causing significant harm to those patients. Thus, respondent’s expert did not rely exclusively on clinical practice guidelines. Instead, as the Appellate Division concluded, he used those guidelines as “one link in the chain” of his evaluation process … . Matter of Won Yi v New York State Bd. of Professional Med. Conduct, 2025 NY Slip Op 03103, CtApp 5-22-25

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE; AT SENTENCING, AFTER DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED THE COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BARGAINED-FOR SENTENCE WAS A ONE-YEAR CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE; ON APPEAL DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER AGREED TO THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE DOES NOT VIOLATE RPAPL 1304 AND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (CT APP) ​
In Cases Not Involving Death or Bodily Injury Arising from an Accident, Whether a Notice of Disclaimer is Timely Is Governed by Common Law Waiver and Estoppel Principles, Not by the Provisions of Insurance law 3420
FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.
Normal Negligence Theories Apply to Injury Resulting from Animal Wandering Off (Cow Struck By Car)
PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING A RESCISSION HEARING WAS HELD AND PAROLE WAS RESCINDED; THE RESCISSION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS SUPPLYING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT “NEW” BUT WHICH WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THE PAROLE BOARD (CT APP).
THE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 3203(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES A PROPORTIONAL REFUND WHEN THE INSURED DIES DURING THE PREMIUM PERIOD (CT APP).
CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOIL REQUESTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR DISCLOSURE OF DECEDENTS’... PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED...