A meeting of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners was held on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, 4th Floor Conference Center, Trenton, New Jersey for Disciplinary Matters Pending Conclusion, open to the public. The meeting was called to order by Ms. Karen Criss, Chairperson for Open Disciplinary Matters.

PRESENT

Board Members Ciechanowski, Criscito, Criss, DeGregorio, Haddad, Jordan, Lambert, Lomazow, Mendelowitz, Nussbaum, Paul, Reichman, Walsh, and Wheeler.

EXCUSED

Board Members Cheema, Salas-Lopez, Scott, Stanley and Strand.

ALSO PRESENT

Deputy Attorneys General Dick, Flanzman, Gelber, Levine, Puteska, Ringler, and Warhaftig; Executive Director William V. Roeder and Mary Lou Mottola, Executive Director of the Medical Practitioner Review Panel.

RATIFICATION OF MINUTES

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 11, 2009 BOARD MEETING.

HEARINGS, PLEAS, AND APPEARANCES

OFF AGENDA

I/M/O SCHISANO, Denis M.D. 25MA03337500

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO RATIFY BOARD PRESIDENT MENDELOWITZ' SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE AS EMBODIED IN THE SIGNED CONSENT ORDER.

1. RAGI, Gangaram MD 25MA05675000
Kim D. Ringler, DAG
Benjamin Clarke, Esq. For the Respondent

A Motion for Summary Decision was filed by the Board on December 30, 2008. Counsel for Dr. Ragi objected to the Motion for Summary Decision and challenged that the Board had not determined whether it was contested and requested that the matter be transferred to the Office of Administrative Law. The challenge was heard at the January 14, 2009 meeting. The Board decided that this was a contested case and that it would retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of hearing the Summary Decision Motion filed by the Attorney General.

Dr. Mendelowitz recused from discussion and vote in this matter and left the meeting.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All staff, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, the Board convened the hearing.

DAG Ringler and Mr. Benjamin Clarke Esq. placed their appearances on the record.

Ms. De Gregorio noted for the record that Mr. Clarke is a long time friend, but she did not believe that it would prejudice her. DAG Ringler did not object to her continued participation in the hearing.

DAG Ringler mentioned at the onset that she attempted to redact the patient names and certain information and asked the court reporter, as well as Board Members, to consider the name redacted if a name inadvertently used or appears on a document. Any copies made of the documents will be corrected as well.

DAG Ringler then moved documents AG - A through AG-U (attached to the complaint), AG-V (Dr. Ragi’s Answer) into the record. Mr. Clarke clarified that all the attachments to the papers would be part of the record. The Chair moved into evidence AG - A through AG - V.

Mr. Clarke informed the Chair that he had a procedural motion, but thought it was premature to make at this time and opted to address the issue during his oral argument.

DAG Ringler reminded the Board that Dr. Ragi was charged with ten counts of sexual misconduct and two incidents of misrepresentation on his applications. The prosecutor had already investigated the matter. At the time of a statement in open court, Dr. Ragi agreed that the nine women were "victims" and in open court, Dr. Ragi apologized to them. He also agreed that the women did not need to appear before the Board because the Board could rely on their statements. Each woman, independent of each other, all stated that their breasts were "felt up" by the Respondent. Regardless of the medical service provided, they all stated that "he grabbed my breasts" or that he groped the breasts of each woman. Such statements, according to DAG Ringler, were sufficient to sustain the Attorney General’s burden of proof that Dr. Ragi had violated the Board’s statutes and regulations.

DAG Ringler further reminded the Board that Dr. Ragi had an opportunity to confront each woman and Dr. Ragi refused to challenge their statements. He took the Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI), with the advice of counsel, and gave up that chance. While he has raised questions about the veracity of the statements, he has not raised any proof to negate the truth of what is being asserted by the women. To the contrary, DAG Ringler continued, the proofs of the statements are sufficient to sustain summary decision on the count of sexual misconduct. By way of additional proof, she asked the Board to consider that he offered an apology to his "victims" for the "harm he caused." Each account had a strikingly similar modus operandi. The accounts were nearly identical -- he fondled their breasts during medical treatment.

DAG Ringler continued that the other two counts of misrepresentation also were admitted. Dr. Ragi did not reveal to the hospitals that he was under investigation. He cannot provide proof, contrary evidence or significant material facts to dispute the Attorney General's evidence that he failed to reveal this information on his certified applications.

DAG Ringler said that Dr. Ragi made a strategic decision not to question, although he had the opportunity, any of the "victims." To successfully defeat the motion, Dr. Ragi must submit affidavits or certifications -- sworn testimony -- that would challenge the sworn statements of the victims who came forward independent of one another. Even if one takes the evidence in the light most favorably to the Respondent, one can only conclude one result -- that he violated the Board's regulation on sexual misconduct and that he committed professional misconduct.

Mr. Clarke addressed the Board on behalf of the Respondent. He challenged one statement made by DAG Ringler -- raising questions is not proof. To the contrary, according to Mr. Clarke, he would be raising many, many questions, which is his job. According to Mr. Clarke, there were three problems with the motion. Procedurally -- it was premature insofar as the Motion is deficient because it has failed to provide the documents that it is required to prove. It was also contrary to law. It was unconstitutional because Dr. Raji was being deprived of his license without any opportunity to refute the charges that are raised against him. According to DAG Ringler, either he must be de facto held guilty for entering into Pre-Trial Intervention ("PTI") -- which had no admissions of guilt -- or he is guilty because they all said he did it. To conclude either way, deprives Dr. Ragi of his constitutional rights.

Turning the attention to the PTI Order, Mr. Clarke noted that the Order states that Respondent agreed to enter PTI and without any admissions of guilt. It is a settlement of criminal charges. The Order stated that, as a condition, all statements from the "victims" may be presented to the BME without objection and without the need to testify. He continued by arguing that the Board couldn't conclude that all the statements are true. He never agreed to not contest the statements. To hold otherwise would deprive Dr. Ragi the right to confront his witnesses. The motion was filed even before the matter was deemed a contested case. This did not afford the doctor an opportunity to contest the proofs which is fundamental in any contested case. The Board can grant the motion only if it concluded that Dr. Ragi is guilty because he entered into PTI, which did not have any admissions of guilt, or that he is guilty just because of the statements made by witnesses.

In response, DAG Ringler stated that Mr. Clarke suggested that unless Dr. Ragi confessed there can never be a motion for summary judgment. The Attorney General argued that the statements are overwhelmingly clear -- the number of statements, the similarity of the statements and the independence of those who came forward. Dr. Ragi made his apology in open court. He had an opportunity and he chose to forego that. The argument raised by Dr. Ragi is that there may have been some bias against him. DAG Ringler continued that based on the quantum and quality of the evidence, the Board can determine only that he violated the Board's regulations. Based on the overwhelming proof, the Board could grant partial summary decision in this matter.

Mr. Clarke also argued that there is no answer to count XII, because of a clerical error. Consistent with the manner in which the other counts were handled, he would deny those allegations.

In rebuttal to the Attorney General’s arguments, Mr. Clarke apologized if the Board believed that he was giving the impression that he was personalizing the matter. He was making complex legal arguments and he appealed to those with a legal background to assure that the correct standard was being used.

Mr. Clarke continued that Dr. Ragi is entitled as a matter of constitutional right, to deny charges made against him in open court and to be afforded the opportunity to give his side of the story. He is entitled to have the right to go before the OAL. Every licensee that is accused of misconduct has the right to present his case and deny the charges.

In closing, Mr. Clarke said the Attorney General referred the Board to the Respondent's answer in which he admitted that he provided the false information, however, denied that he did it with malicious intent.

If one were to accept the Respondent's argument, there would be no utility to the motion for summary decision. The evidence, according to DAG Ringer, was overwhelming and demonstrated that Dr. Ragi violated the Board's sexual misconduct statute and the respondent had not come forward with any evidence to refute that which was entered by the Attorney General and accepted by the Board.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, the Board announced the following motion.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO GRANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION AS TO COUNTS ONE THROUGH TEN AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACTS THAT DR. RAGI’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE BOARD'S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT REGULATIONS. THE RESPONDENT ALSO COMMITTED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND EVIDENCED AN INCAPACITY TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY TO SAFEGUARD THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF HIS PATIENTS. IN REGARD TO COUNT Xl1, USE OF MISREPRESENTATION, THE BOARD NOTED THE CLERICAL ERROR AND IMPUTED HIS ANSWER CONSISTENT WITH COUNT XI AND FINDS SUMMARY DECISION TO COUNT XII AS HE ENGAGED IN THE USE OF OR EMPLOYMENT OF MISREPRESENTATION. THE BOARD ALSO DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT'S APOLOGY FOR THE HARM AND HIS NEGOTIATED LANGUAGE NOT TO OBJECT OR REQUIRE VICTIMS TO TESTIFY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PRE-TRIAL INTERVENTION DOCUMENT AND WHEN READ TOGETHER WITH THE NINE STATEMENTS, THE PROOFS ARE OVERWHELMING AND THE RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED ONLY GENERAL DENIALS WHICH ARE GENERALLY NOT RECOGNIZED AS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION.

Mr. Clarke requested a stay which was denied. He then requested a continuation until after the mitigation hearing, which was also denied. He then asked for a return date to proceed with the mitigation hearing because he had not had an opportunity to prepare. He was prepared only to present his case for the motion of summary decision. He had additional materials that could be provided and he needed additional time to prepare.

DAG Ringler responded that the Respondent was given ample notice to prepare and had been informed that the mitigation would proceed immediately after the hearing in the matter in advance affording him more than ample time to prepare.

Ms. Criss informed the parties that they were told in the appearance letter and during the Board discussions that they would move forward.

Mr. Clarke asked for reconsideration of the issue. He acknowledged that the parties were informed but he believed that it was inaccurate. He believed that the parties were told that if the motion were granted it would proceed.

Ms. Criss read from the appearance letter which clearly outlined the proceedings that were scheduled for the February Board meeting. She denied Respondent’s motion for a delay in the mitigation hearing.

Mr. Clarke stated that Dr. Ragi and his wife would make a statement to the Board. He noted for the record that he was hard pressed to speak when the doctor's license was on the line and there has not been an opportunity to prepare for a full mitigation hearing.

Mr. Clarke reminded the Board that the allegations in this case stem from alleged incidents from 2001. He argued that the Board has decided the matter without an examination of the full facts and that Dr. Ragi has not seen female patients under the Board’s Order, which remains in effect. Any protection needed by the public, according to Mr. Clarke, had already been accomplished. Any concern, he continued, from the findings made that he would repeat this behavior is ameliorated by the Interim Consent Order already in place. Dr. Ragi would continue to see only male patients. The only value that could be served by disciplining him now would be punishment. The question then arises what is the need for punishment and, if warranted, what amount. Mr. Clarke continued to argue that in the criminal context, the Board needed to decide whether its purpose is a specific or general deterrence. In this case, the prohibition on seeing female patients would be the specific deterrence and that already has been addressed. The idea of general deterrence would be to send a message to other practitioners to deter him/her from sexual misconduct. He posited that would be a fantasy. Hurting Dr. Ragi more would not dissuade anyone else from this type of alleged behavior. The public is already protected with the Order that has been put in place. This should be balanced against his value to society as he is an excellent dermatologist. He saves lives. In seeking the suspension of his license, patients would be placed at risk.

Mr. Clarke further argued that Dr. Ragi had already been severely punished. He reminded the Board that in 2003, Dr. Ragi entered into an agreement with the Board regarding two complaints and then in October 2004, he applied to the Board and put in place additional protections. He has complied with the terms of those restrictions and continued to serve a valuable function to his patients and to society. As part of the first Order that the Board entered, he had to pay $10,000 in fines and $23,000 in costs. He has addressed the criminal complaint without the need of a trial. He had hoped to continue with his practice with the restrictions. In 2005, a new patient came forward and this received a fair amount of press which produced seven other complaints. He paid an additional $50,000 as a condition of PTI.

Dr. Ragi then was sworn and read a statement to the Board. In his statement, he thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. Over the last several years, he said he has felt like he has been living a nightmare. The most important thing for him is his family and his profession. He stated that he has faced a number of hurdles -- race, religion, color and has had to work twice as hard as most other doctors. He argued that he always has been raised to give his patients the best care. For the past 17 years, he recounted his professional accomplishments. He said that when he apologized, he meant that he was sorry for what they misconstrued. He also posited that the allegations were all the same because they all read the same newspaper article and heard the same story on the radio stations.

Since 2004, he has not seen any female patients. He also took a professional boundaries course. Dr. Ragi believed that every doctor should take the course prior to getting the license because he learned so much. He believed that he learned the appropriate way to interact with patients.

Dr. Ragi stressed again how important his profession and his family are to him. He complied with all the terms of his PTI and had also performed community service, as well as paid the fines. He used the analogy that if ten people ask him to get his car, that would not make him a parking attendant. In this matter, just because nine women made the allegations, doesn't make it true. He also said that the same patients that raised the allegations also came back and returned as his patients after the alleged incidents supposedly took place.

Dr. Ragi apologized to his family for what this has done to them. He noted that consistent with the prohibition of seeing females, he does not even treat his wife, daughter or sister, but referred them to other doctors. Dr. Ragi informed the Board that he would never hurt anyone and that he takes the tenets of his religion as a Hindu seriously. He tearfully begged the Board to let him continue to practice because he loves his profession. He will remain in the PTI program for about two additional years.

Dr. Ragi said in the past (about seven or eight years ago), he had two malpractice cases; both of which were settled.

Dr. Ragi acknowledged that he needed to communicate better with his patients and to explain the area where he might be examining. He further clarified that when he apologized to the victims, he meant he apologized for any mis-perception that he had done anything inappropriately. He also noted that when they raised these allegations, he believed that he broke the trust that exists between the doctor and patient and he was also apologizing for the mis-perception of his behavior. Also when pressed further, he explained that during the Boundaries course he also learned about the dynamics between the doctor and patient better. For example, the mood a patient might be in when he/she arrives may play a role in how that patient perceives the doctor treats the patient. He learned that he had to always keep a professional boundary between himself and the patient, He also learned that a second person in the room might also be helpful in diffusing a misunderstanding. Dr. Ragi also said that he has probably been too trusting with his patients.

In conclusion, Dr. Ragi said that he was humbled by these proceedings. He had spent his life attempting to help people and that after his hard work, he hoped the Board would permit him to continue to practice.

Mr. Clarke then called Dr. Ragi's wife, Margaret. She read a statement to the Board. She asked the Board to understand that Dr. Ragi came from India and trained very hard to eventually be accepted into a program where he studied with Dr. Mohs, who told her that Dr. Ragi was one of his finest students. Her husband truly loves what he does and his passion is clear with each of his patients. When he comes home, he telephones all his patients to make sure they are doing well. She noted that he is extremely generous and has treated many patients pro bono and was always ready to see a patient no matter what the time of day. His generosity also extended to many medical students/trainees. The medical community deeply respects him and even with these allegations, colleagues continue to refer patients to him.

Mr. Clarke asked that Mr. Gallantucci testify and DAG Ringler objected, stating there may be issues relating to attorney-client privileges that would preclude his testimony. Also if he is permitted to testify, then he should be instructed that his testimony would be limited to mitigation issues.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, the Board continued.

The Board reviewed the submission by Mr. Clarke and accepted Exhibits 1 to 7 into evidence.

The Chair permitted Mr. Galantucci, Esquire to testify but limited his testimony to character evidence. The witness explained that he met Dr. Ragi about six or seven years ago when the first allegations were made. Over the course of six and a half years, he learned many things about him. He informed the Board that he was not testifying in his capacity as an attorney and he was not being paid. Over the years, he has come to admire Dr. Ragi both professionally and personally and had the utmost respect for him. According to the witness, this is also an opinion shared by many individuals in and around the court house. He trusted him as a doctor and had sent his wife and sons to him. When his wife went into the office, she noticed a letter stating that he cannot treat females and he even refused to shake her hand.

The witness had to be reminded a number of times that his testimony was to be limited to mitigation issues alone.

The witness continued to explain how many in the community respected him. The witness believed that Dr. Ragi is a talented physician and that society would lose a valued medical provider if he was not allowed to practice medicine.

In closing, Mr. Clarke summarized that in mitigation he asked the Board to consider that Dr. Ragi is a well-respected physician. The conduct that was alleged to have occurred is almost ten years old and did not surface for at least five years. Related and equally important, this whole sequence of complaints represented a second time that he was being held accountable for alleged conduct all dating from the same time period. He asked the Board to once again remember that Dr. Ragi had been punished over the years for the first complaints. He posited that the second round of complaints was only a result of the publicity. He further argued that this would be "double" punishment for the same operative facts. Finally, he asked the Board to recognize that the Board had already put into place sufficient safeguards to protect the public. Anything more at this time would be only to punish for the sake of punishment. The skills of this valued physician, according to his attorney, should be put to society's use.

In closing, DAG Ringler asked the Board to realize that the Board found that Dr. Ragi committed twelve distinct acts of misconduct. She didn't believe that the Board was here to debate whether or not he is a talented physician. She recognized that he is talented and society should have talented physicians. But the Board was here to determine what penalty was appropriate when a physician committed multiple acts of sexual misconduct. There was a pattern to each of the statements made by the victims. In each, there was inappropriate groping of the victims’ breasts. She asked the Board to imagine that these patients went for help and what they received was groping by their physician.

DAG Ringler continued that punishment was a valid consideration when crafting the penalty. These events did date back to 2005 and it is questionable as to how many more women there might have been had Dr. Ragi continued to treat female patients. There was a complete lack of trust. Additionally, there is no remorse or taking of responsibility on the part of Dr. Ragi. While he would like the Board to believe that this all stemmed from communication, or lack thereof, the pattern and story of each one of the women does not support that position. The Board also has the duty to evaluate the conduct of its licensees. Such behavior cannot be condoned. The Board needed to determine what is the fair and just penalty that is appropriate for twelve violations of the Board’s rules and in the absence of any understanding by Dr. Ragi of what he did. She asked the Board to allow the victims to see what happens to a licensee that oversteps the appropriate boundaries.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, the Board announced in open session.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO IMPOSE A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION, THE FIRST YEAR ACTIVE, THE REMAINDER TO BE SERVED AS A PERIOD OF PROBATION. PRIOR TO RESUMING ACTIVE PRACTICE, DR. RAGI SHALL SUCCESSFULLY UNDERGO A PSYCHOSEXUAL EVALUATION DONE BY THE JJ PETERS INSTITUTE AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY ANY RECOMMENDATIONS AND TAKE COURSES IN THE FOLLOWING: AN ADDITIONAL COURSE IN BOUNDARY ISSUES, AND ETHICS. THE BOARD CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN A PERMANENT BAN ON TREATING FEMALE PATIENTS. HE WAS ASSESSED A PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000, $10,000 FOR TWO COUNTS OF MIS-REPRESENTATION AND $30,000 FOR THE REMAINING COUNTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. RESPONDENT WILL HAVE UNTIL MARCH 16TH TO WIND DOWN HIS PRACTICE AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE ON ANY NEW PATIENTS.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR COSTS BY FEBRUARY 25, 2009. THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT WILL HAVE UNTIL MARCH 11, 2009 TO RESPOND. THE BOARD WILL DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE PAPERS.

Ms. DeGregorio abstained from vote and discussion in this matter.

Mr. Clarke renewed his application for a stay of the Board's decision. He recognized that the Order was not effective until March 16th, but requested that a stay of the Order in its entirety be entered pending the Appeal. He further argued that this is the first time that the Board has imposed penalties based on a PTI Order and that should be reviewed by the Appellate process. Dr. Ragi has practiced for the last five years under strict conditions without even a scintilla of a complaint. He urged the Board to allow him to continue to practice under those conditions pending the appeal of a unique legal issue.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, it announced the following.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO REAFFIRM ITS PRIOR DECISION TO DENY THE STAY.

Ms. DeGregorio abstained from vote and discussion in this matter.

IV. OLD BUSINESS

1. I/M/O O'NEAL, John, M.D. 25MA0330910
David M. Puteska DAG

Drs. Criscito, Ciechanowski, Nussbaum, Paul and Reichman recused from discussion and vote in this matter and left the table.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATION AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Returning to open session, the Board opened this matter. In light of the number of recusals and the lack of a quorum, because of the emergent nature of this application, Ms. Criss, as Vice President determined to consider this matter and to decide the matter, subject to ratification of the full Board next month. The action taken by Ms. Criss was effective immediately.

DAG Puteska made an application and reminded the Board that in May 2008, Dr. O'Neal entered into a Consent Order with the Board. The majority of conditions in that Consent Order revolved around participation with the Physicians Assistance Program. On or about January 2009, notification was received from Dr. Baxter about Dr. O’Neal’s lack of participation with the PAP. Although not required by the Order, the Attorney General did notify both Dr. O'Neal and his prior counsel of this application. Mr. Kern informed the deputy that neither would be appearing.

UPON CONSIDERATION OF DR. BAXTER’S SUBMISSION AND THE EXPLICIT TERMS OF THE CONSENT ORDER, THE CHAIR ORDERED THAT DR O’NEAL’S LICENSE BE SUSPENDED IMMEDIATELY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT ORDER.

2. AZAM, Chowdhury M.D. 25MA06382200
David M. Puteska DAG
Steven I Kern, Esq. for the Respondent

Dr. Azam’s case was heard by the Board on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 on the Attorney General’s application for an Order to Show Cause seeking the temporary suspension of Dr. Azam’s license to practice medicine and surgery and for other such relief as deemed appropriate. The Board declined to suspend Dr. Azam’s license and ruled that the doctor could continue to practice at Insights Behavioral Health LLC, subject to certain restrictions. Dr. Azam now petitioned the Board for two additional proposed work sites, and for an extension of time to wind down his practice. The matter was heard on the papers.

Drs. Ciechanowski and Criscito recused from discussion and vote in this matter.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to Open Session, the Board announced the following:

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO RATIFY DR. MENDELOWITZ' DECISION NOT TO EXTEND THE TIME TO WIND DOWN HIS PRACTICE. THE BOARD, ALSO UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO DENY APPROVAL FOR THE SECOND LOCATION OF COMPASS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IN EDISON, NEW JERSEY. ALTHOUGH THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER PRACTICE AT ANOTHER SITE, IT WOULD BE CONDITIONED ON PRE-APPROVAL OF THE BOARD WITH, AT A MINIMUM, THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY ITS PRIOR ORDER AT INSIGHTS.

B. LaFON, Michael M.D. 25MA04535900
David G. Evans Esq. for the Respondent

Dr. LaFon petitioned the Board to reinstate his medical license. This matter was heard on the papers on February 11, 2009.

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND DELIBERATIONS.

All parties, except administrative and counseling staff, left the room.

Returning to open session, the Board announced the following:

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO WRITE TO THE PROSECUTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS OFFICE HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF REINSTATEMENT OF DR. LAFON’S LICENSE, IN LIGHT OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT. IN THE EVENT THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE HAS NO OBJECTION, DR. LAFON WILL BE SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE REINSTATEMENT PETITION. IN THE EVENT THERE IS AN OBJECTION, THE MATTER WILL BE RETURNED TO THE BOARD.

V. NEW BUSINESS

I/M/O Jennifer L. Paquet P.A.

The Board was asked to finalize the Provisional Order of Discipline

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO FINALIZE THE PROVISIONAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINE.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Criss, R.N., C.N.M., Chairperson
For Open Disciplinary Minutes