A meeting of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners was held on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 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 Open Disciplinary Minutes Board Members Cheema, Criscito, Criss, DeGregorio, Haddad, Jordan, Lambert, Mendelowitz, Nussbaum, Paul, Reichman, Scott, Stanley, and Walsh.

EXCUSED

Board Members Ciechanowski, Clemency-Kohler, Lomazow, Salas-Lopez, Strand, Weiss and Wheeler.

ALSO PRESENT

Assistant Attorney General Joyce, Deputy Attorneys General Dick, Jespersen, Krugman, Levine, and Warhaftig, Executive Director Roeder and Medical Education Director Blanks.

RATIFICATION OF MINUTES

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 9, 2008 BOARD MEETING AS SUBMITTED.

HEARINGS, PLEAS, RETURN DATES, APPEARANCES

10 A.M. DENDRINOS, George, A. M.D. 25MA06789900
Michael Rubin, DAG Prosecuting
Robert Conroy, Esq.
Debra Levine and Jodi Krugman, DA’sG Counseling

By way of background, an Administrative Complaint was filed in July of 2007. A Motion for Summary Decision was filed by the Attorney General on or about December 10, 2007. Dr. Dendrinos opposed the Motion for Summary Decision and the hearing was scheduled for February 13, 2008.

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

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

Returning to open session, the Board heard the matter of Dr. Dendrinos.

The attorneys, DAG Michael Rubin, on behalf of the Attorney General, and Mr. Robert D. Conroy, on behalf of Dr. Dendrinos, placed their appearances on the record.

DAG Rubin opened by reminding the Board that the application before the Board was a Motion for Summary Decision. The Attorney General alleges that there are no issues of material facts. The parties have stipulated that the patient's name will be redacted and only referred to by her initials.

DAG Rubin stated that the evidence will show the doctor has admitted that he engaged in a sexual relationship with his patient which is a clear violation of the Board's sexual misconduct rule. In April 1999, E.D. presented as a patient and Dr. Dendrinos diagnosed her with inter alia, depression, anxiety disorder and prescribed Zoloft. The physician-patient relationship continued on for at least eight more appointments. Dr. Dendrinos expressly acknowledged that he treated her during this time. He further admitted that in October 1999 he began an intimate relationship with the patient which continued until December 2000. He alleges that he terminated the relationship with E.D. at that time, although there is some evidence to the contrary. This admission unequivocally established that there was a violation of the Board's regulations which was admitted in the pleadings, in the answer and in his deposition testimony before the Preliminary Evaluation Committee. DAG Rubin further stated that there is a violation of the Board's regulations and that this violation is a gross deviation from the standard of practice. The regulation further provides that it shall not be a defense that the patient consented to the relationship or that the physician had sincere feelings for the patient. DAG Rubin stated that the only thing that may be disputed is when the physician-patient relationship was terminated. In any event, this termination does not comport with the Board's regulation of the proper way to terminate the relationship. Moreover, the physician that terminates a psychiatric physician-patient relationship must have at least a two year period prior to beginning a new relationship. Dr. Dendrinos was treating this patient for depression. DAG Rubin said even if the Board were to find that this does not apply, the Attorney General would argue that the doctor did not terminate the relationship appropriately. At the very least, from October through the end of January 2000 there existed a doctor-patient relationship. Dr. Dendrinos admitted he had a relationship with her. In addition, DAG Rubin stated that there is some evidence that after January 2000 there were additional medical services provided (removed glass from her foot, and prescribed some cough medicine). Finally, because these facts are undisputed and these facts establish a violation of the Board's regulations, there is basis to impose discipline and that the Attorney General's application for summary decision be granted.

Mr. Conroy noted that the Board is here to decide the fate of Dr. Dendrinos. He also noted that there were over fifty individuals present who intended to testify as to the character of Dr. Dendrinos. He asked the Board to be certain that its decision be weighed carefully. Interestingly, Mr. Conroy added, that Dr. Dendrinos never lied about anything that happened. In fact, had he lied, this matter would never have been brought to the Board and would have been referred to the OAL. The woman would be subject to cross examination and that would be the best way to really determine what happened. The case is filled with innuendo. Mr. Conroy stated that the adoption date of the regulation is slightly before the events of this case. He stated that it is not as if there were twenty years of the regulation in place. The events occurred in 1999 and concluded shortly thereafter in 2000. There was some question as to whether or not the relationship is terminated. Here, Mr. Conroy said, -- there can be no doubt. The patient asked for her records, carried them out and went to another doctor. The regulation, under N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(e), states the licensee need not comply with the requirements if the relationship has been terminated by conduct of the patient that manifest a termination of the relationship. Mr. Conroy stated that is what happened in this matter.

Mr. Conroy further argued that the Attorney General talks about removing glass from her foot. What the Attorney General doesn't tell you is that this happened in the apartment where they were co-habitating from time to time. Yet, the Attorney General wants you to believe that it was a medical service provided in the office. Mr. Conroy did not believe that the Board wanted to make such a foolish interpretation that would end up in an unjust decision.

Turning the Board's attention to the regulation, Mr. Conroy pointed out that the regulation makes a distinction between psychiatric patients and other patients of physicians. The policy statement addresses the inequality of power. In this situation, this was a fifteen month love affair. It was not what was contemplated by the regulation. Dr. Dendrinos did not force himself on this patient. ED and he consented to the relationship. He was going through a difficult time with his marriage, saw the patient as a friend, she came on to him, and early on, even though he was caught up in the passion, he realized he had to stop it. They separated from their partners and moved into adjacent apartments. The consensual romantic relationship continued for fifteen months. Mr. Conroy said indeed, she broke off the relationship because her daughter wanted a dog and they argued about it. They broke up and later on, when she tried to reconcile and he had returned to his wife, she sued him. Was it a technical violation of the regulation? Yes -- but this was not the type of patient that is meant to be protected by the regulation. There was no violation of trust or misuse of information gained during therapy. ED and he gave into their passion and "fell in love." Additionally, there was no violation of the termination regulation. Mr. Conroy said the patient by her behavior, terminated the relationship and took her medical records to another physician.

Mr. Rubin, in rebuttal, noted that Mr. Conroy did not offer any evidence that rebutted or challenged the facts presented by the Attorney General. The fact is that there was a patient-doctor relationship, there was a crossover in that relationship insofar as it became intimate, which is a clear violation of the Board's regulation. Since there are not disputed materials facts, the Attorney General asked the Board to grant the State's motion for summary decision.

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

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

Returning to open session, the Board announced the following:

THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE STATE HAS SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF IN ESTABLISHING THAT THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS AND RELYING ON THE BOARD'S REVIEW OF DR. DENDRINOS' TESTIMONY AND ANSWER, GRANTS THE STATE’S MOTION. IT FURTHER FINDS THAT A DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP BEGAN IN APRIL 1999, THAT E.D. AND DR. DENDRINOS ENTERED INTO A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IN OCTOBER 1999 AND THAT THE DOCTOR- PATIENT RELATIONSHIP CONSISTED OF PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES, IN VIOLATION OF N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.3(c) AND THE DOCTOR’S CONDUCT CONSISTED OF ACTS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(e).

The Board moved into the mitigation phase of the hearing. Ms. Criss requested a proffer of the categories of witnesses that would be presented. Although Mr. Conroy objected as he did not believe that it was legally required, he informed the Board that some are patients, representatives from centers, representatives from the community, some friends, some colleagues, and spiritual advisors. Mr. Conroy acknowledged that he has presented a witness list of twenty five, but he did not believe that legally he was required to do so and although he believed that it was fundamentally unfair, he complied with the Chair's request to identify the witnesses.

Ms. Criss asked Mr. Conroy to begin his opening statement. He objected because he believed that the State had the burden of proof and that the State should go first. Ms. Criss overruled his objection. Mr. Conroy asked for a legal ruling.

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

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

The Board returned to open session.

Chairperson Criss stated on the record that the State had already sustained the burden of proof as to liability and the hearing was in mitigation at this point. She, once again, invited Mr. Conroy to give an opening statement.

In his opening statement, Mr. Conroy asked that all those in the room that support Dr. Dendrinos stand up. At that time, approximately fifty people in support of Dr. Dendrinos stood up and Mr. Conroy stated that the people present in the room to support the doctor carried greater weight than any words that he might speak.

Mr. Conroy called his first witness, Father Rafael of St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Church in Vineland. The witness said Dr. Dendrinos is a parishioner, a very involved member of the parish and member of the parish council. The witness said he had learned about this episode from Dr. Dendrinos and when he learned of the incident, Dr. Dendrinos was forthright in admitting what had happened. As Dr. Dendrinos’ spiritual advisor, he acknowledged that it was difficult for one to come to confession. During their talks, the doctor never attempted to justify his behavior and admitted at the onset that he was wrong. Also, he learned from Dr. Dendrinos how badly he felt because of those that were affected by his actions. Specifically, Father Rafael was referring to the doctor’s family and all that they had to go through in the last ten or so years. The witness realized that the Board has taken an oath to protect the public and asked the Board to realize that Dr. Dendrinos does not pose a threat to the public. He believes that Dr. Dendrinos has learned his lesson and that it was a time of forgiveness. In coming to confession, he already admitted that he committed a sin and that he was wrong. He has patched things up with his family and his God, and now eight years later, his whole life could be turned upside down again. The witness questioned what or who would benefit by these kinds of actions. Over the years, he has gotten to know the doctor’s family very well and knowing that he did wrong and having to live with the disappointment over the years has been punishment enough. According to the witness, this was a one time event and it was time to let it go.

The next witness was Dr. Shields who has been practicing in the Bridgeton area and knows Dr. Dendrinos on both a professional and personal level. Their sons played on the same sports team and have socialized since that time. As the campus vice president at the Elmer Division, the witness stated that he knows the doctor in a professional setting, especially at the hospital. There have been no problems with him, he has been an exemplary physician who has earned the good citizenship award and has served on various committees. Even though he was present for the liability phase, he did not learn anything new or anything that would change his opinion of him. The witness is disturbed by the time line because the event took place in 1999 and 2000, yet the complaint was not filed until 2007. Dr. Shields has no reservations about Dr. Dendrinos treating patients at the hospital, including his own family members. The hospital, even after learning about the complaint, has not initiated any actions. If the Board were to take action, it would, of course, be referred to the credentials committee of the facility. He acknowledged the importance of maintaining boundaries in the doctor patient relationship. He further explained that as people of authority, patients can be persuaded to make decisions based on that imbalance of power. He learned that it was the doctor’s responsibility to maintain those boundaries during his medical training. Dr. Shields believed that the regulation was unclear because it would appear from what was read earlier in the day, that one could not treat a spouse or partner. On cross examination, Mr. Rubin clarified that the rule specifically carves out an exception for the treatment of spouses. When pressed, Dr. Shields acknowledged that he did not know Dr. Dendrinos at the time of the incident that is the subject matter of the complaint.

Mr. Conroy marked as R-1 a copy of letters of support. Hearing no objection from the Attorney General, it was admitted into evidence.

Mr. Conroy called his next witness, Pan Kaskabas. He testified that he has known Dr. Dendrinos and they are members in the same parish. Mr. Kaskabas is familiar with the work that he has done at the Church as well as from some social gatherings. He believes that the vast majority of parishioners are also patients of Dr. Dendrinos. There are a number of patients who only communicate in Greek and Dr. Dendrinos can speak to them in their native language. The witness testified that the community is small and everyone is aware of what happened. Throughout it, Dr. Dendrinos was honest and forthcoming with the mistakes that he has made. Eventually, the witness realized that one of the reasons the doctor was divorcing his wife Denise was because of another woman. Mr. Kaskabas was also concerned about the children. He was happy when he learned about a year and a half later that he returned to his wife and that they were going to work things out. As far as the witness was concerned, he believed that Dr. Dendrinos has repented for his actions and has been ‘punished’ enough just having to live with the shame. He asked the Board to not take any action against Dr. Dendrinos.

Mr. Albert Gonzalez was then called to testify. He was friends with Dr. Dendrinos’ wife, Denise and met Dr. Dendrinos when he began dating Denise in 1983. He testified that Dr. Dendrinos is a good father and husband. Denise frequently talked to him about what was happening in her life. Mr. Gonzalez wanted to come to testify because he believed that Dr. Dendrinos made a mistake and had an error in judgment. The witness believes that the doctor is aware of the impact this had on his family and has done his best to try and put his life back together.

The next witnesses, Clifton and June Brooks, testified that they are both patients of Dr. Dendrinos, probably dating back about eight to ten years. Dr. Dendrinos has also taken care of members of their family. They are both aware of details of his affair and it does not matter to either of them. Both testified that he is the best doctor and has helped them medically. Nothing that they heard at the hearing changed their opinion of Dr. Dendrinos. In fact, they have always referred friends to him as patients and their friends have always been happy with his treatment. The witnesses also asked the Board to remember that the community needs Dr. Dendrinos and if he were not able to continue to practice, many patients in the community would be without a doctor. They asked that the Board show him some mercy. They believed that about five years ago Dr. Dendrinos told them about the situation and the problems that he was having before the Board.

Howard Levine came to know Dr. Dendrinos about 12 years ago when Dr. Dendrinos was taking care of his mother. Immediately, he knew that he wanted this man to take care of his mother because of his excellent bedside manner. Dr. Dendrinos took care of her over the years and although his mother could be difficult, he showed compassion and empathy for his mother. Dr. Dendrinos, according to the witness, also took care of him and his wife. In all of these years, he never saw a side of Dr. Dendrinos that showed that he was anything short of a caring and loving doctor. He spends all the time that he can with his patients. He only found out about this about a year ago and even when he learned about it, he would not change doctors. He understands that Dr. Dendrinos has made a mistake and asked the Board not to compound that mistake by suspending his medical license. The witness stated that the Vineland community needs a caring doctor such as Dr. Dendrinos.

Mr. Rubin placed an objection on the record that Rule 403 of Evidence can exclude evidence that is cumulative and duplicative. The Attorney General is willing to stipulate that all the witness would essentially testify the same. Additionally, the Attorney General noted that many of the witnesses already submitted letters of support. The Chair overruled the objection, however, advised the Attorney General that the objection could be renewed at a later time.

Christina Clay, a billing manager, first came to know the Dendrinos through an association with Denise Dendrinos when she was first separated from Dr. Dendrinos. As the years went on, they became friendlier, and Denise was aware that Ms. Clay was familiar with the billing aspects of the medical practice. She provided the doctor advice on billing management. She learned about the affair when Mrs. Dendrinos was first separated from Dr. Dendrinos. Ms. Clay’s husband was leaving her and she turned to Dr. Dendrinos who helped her understand what was going on. She testified that to her knowledge, Dr. Dendrinos was very conscientious in making sure that he billed the proper way.

Dr. Villani has known Dr. Dendrinos for approximately seven years as a friend in the Greek community and as a colleague. Dr. Villani is a radiologist and has come to believe that Dr. Dendrinos has the utmost integrity. He believes that Dr. Dendrinos’ practice is an integral part of the Vineland Community serving a large number of the Greek population. Dr. Dendrinos is held in high esteem within the community. He is aware that his personal cell phone number is on the message machine. Another aspect of his practice that serves the community is the fact that he speaks three languages – Greek, Spanish, and English. Dr. Villani believed that it would be an embarrassment for the Board to take away his license and deprive the community of his medical services. On questioning from the Board members, Dr. Villani acknowledged that he was aware that the Board has a regulation that deals with sexual misconduct. He questioned whether Dr. Dendrinos stopped the relationship at the appropriate time, but at best he believed he was guilty of falling in love.

Mr. Conroy then called his next witness. Mr. George Darios has known Dr. Dendrinos and met him when Dr. Dendrinos was a resident. The witness stated that the doctor showed weakness in showing that he was a human being. A doctor, according to the witness, is one who is a 17th century image – one with knowledge, one with compassion. The only thing that Dr. Dendrinos did wrong, he continued, was giving in to his compassion at a time when he was vulnerable. He asked the Board to recognize the community support for the doctor. The witness believed that Dr. Dendrinos had already been punished in having to live with the uncertainty of what might happen to him over the years. He posited that the Board was going after him, as it did for others, just because he was human. Mr. Darios asked the Board to show Dr. Dendrinos some compassion and allow him to continue to serve the people of his community.

Mr. Conroy proffered that over fifty individuals showed up and each and everyone would testify to Dr. Dendrinos’ good character and the service that Dr. Dendrinos provides to the Vineland Community. No one would condone what he did, although some would argue that it was a technicality, but all would request that he be permitted to continue to practice. At this time, Mr. Conroy also moved into evidence S-1, the various letters of support submitted on his behalf.

The next witness, Dr. Dendrinos, was sworn in. He addressed the Board and advised that he wanted to apologize for his actions. He acknowledged that he was wrong and that he made a mistake. At that time, he and his wife were going through a rough time and he was vulnerable to the proposition of the woman. Dr. Dendrinos assured the Board that this is the first and only time that this happened and it has not happened again, nor will it ever happen again. According to the witness, he has paid for this mistake emotionally over the years by having the entire community know about his indiscretions. He has taken responsibility for his actions and again, he expressed his remorse to the Board.

Finally, Mrs. Dendrinos was called to testify and after being sworn in, she explained that her husband’s affair almost devastated her marriage. They separated for nearly one and a half years. At that time, she believed that Dr. Dendrinos was going to leave her and start a new relationship with ED. She and her husband got back together because even after they separated, they continued to have a ‘decent’ relationship. In an attempt to keep their relationship amicable, she met with ED because she did not want negative effects on her children. In some ways, ED made her feel comfortable that Mrs. Dendrinos would be a part of their lives. Shortly after that, ED started to prohibit Dr. Dendrinos from coming by and spending time with the children. As ED and her husband started fighting, she and Dr. Dendrinos started to argue more, so they agreed to go to counseling with the goal of trying to work things out as friends with each other. In counseling, the two realized that they had made a mistake and they worked hard together to get back together. According to the witness, the relationship with ED was a two-sided relationship and Dr. Dendrinos entered into the relationship freely. Mrs. Dendrinos testified that they have been together for seven years now and although there are difficulties, they are happy. According to Mrs. Dendrinos, she did not believe her husband would ever do anything like this again. She explained that the community needs him as a doctor and that she is not sure what will happen if he couldn’t practice. She continually hears from the patients that they can’t believe how much time he spends with them. She estimated that Dr. Dendrinos has about 5,000 patients. In closing, she asked the Board to recognize that Dr. Dendrinos realized he has done wrong, but the Board must realize just how much the community needed him. While she acknowledged that he may deserve some punishment, a suspension of his license for even one day was too long and he was not deserving of that, given the present circumstance and the passage of time.

The Attorney General noted that it would be making an application of costs, but that it was not complete at this time. Mr. Conroy asked the Board to defer making the decision until the papers have been filed. Chairperson Criss stated that the Board will take up the matter of costs and consider it during the deliberation of the matter.

In closing, DAG Rubin argued that the Board found that Dr. Dendrinos violated the Board’s regulations and that the Board needs to determine the appropriate sanction to reflect the transgressions. He noted that in the rationale, the rule specifically addresses the lack of trust and vulnerability of the patient. The patient, he continued, is so vulnerable, that consent is not a defense to a violation. In particular in this case, the patient suffered from depression and was having problems with her marriage. She is the very type of patient that the regulation seeks to protect. Additionally, because of the vulnerability, there is an element of power that the physician has over the patient that cannot be disregarded. When this relationship is exploited, there is a disruption on the patient’s life and these relationships erode the public trust in physicians as a whole. DAG Rubin continued that all factors that are addressed by the passing of this regulation occurred in this case. This is the precise fact pattern that this regulation is meant to address. The Board consistently has taken a strong stance in these cases. There really isn’t any mitigating factors that come into play. DAG Rubin recognized that a number of people were present in support, but that did not negate the blatant violation of the Board’s regulation. DAG Rubin urged the Board to issue severe sanctions not only to impose a meaningful sanction against this doctor but as a deterrent message that the Board will not tolerate this kind of behavior.

Mr. Conroy, in his closing, thanked the individuals that came to lend their support.

He turned the Board’s attention to R-1, which includes a letter from the CEO of the Hospital system, as well as the Vice President of Medical Affairs, in which both have supported the continued practice of Dr. Dendrinos. Mr. Conroy continued that all of those that have written in support are aware of what he did. They all acknowledged that Dr. Dendrinos committed a lapse in judgment. Mr. Conroy also mentioned a series of letters from patients and members of his community that attest to his value and urge the Board not to deny the citizens of Vineland his care and compassion. The letters all attest to the respect and high regard in which the community holds Dr. Dendrinos.

Mr. Conroy also reminded the Board that ED received a $120,000 settlement of this civil action and is back with her husband. While the Attorney General would have the Board believe that ED is suffering long term effects, in actuality, she is back where she was when this whole affair began. No one is saying it wasn’t wrong, but Mr. Conroy argued that the Board should not make it something that it was not.

He acknowledged that the New Jersey Board has been at the forefront in this area. Furthermore, New Jersey has also been active in enforcing this regulation. He asked the Board to remember two recent cases that were before it – Parik and DeGuzman. In both cases, there was unwanted touching allegations of patients. In this case, the relationship was consensual and the regulation doesn’t apply because they were in a committed relationship. He did not believe that this case does not require any down time. Mr. Conroy suggested that the appropriate sanction would be an active suspension, one year, that is stayed. This is a period of probation and the Board would be protecting the public. He also believed that a boundaries course was appropriate with community service. Finally, he offered that Dr. Dendrinos should tell his story to physicians since he is one who experienced, first hand, the temptation and error in judgment.

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.

The Board returned to open session and announced the following decision:

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO IMPOSE A THREE YEARS SUSPENSION, SIXTY DAYS ACTIVE, THE REMAINDER TO BE STAYED AND SERVED AS A PERIOD OF PROBATION. HE IS TO TAKE A BOARD PRE-APPROVED BOUNDARIES COURSE, AN ETHICS COURSE AND ASSESSED A PENALTY OF $10,000. AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL RESERVE ON COSTS AND DIRECTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FILE ITS APPLICATION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AND RESPONDENT WILL THEN HAVE FIFTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND. THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE APPLICATION ON THE PAPERS. THE ORDER WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN THIRTY DAYS DURING WHICH TIME THE DOCTOR IS NOT TO TAKE ANY NEW PATIENTS BUT IS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIS CURRENT PATIENTS. A WRITTEN ORDER MORE FULLY DETAILING THE BOARD’S RATIONALE WILL FOLLOW.

Mr. Conroy requested a stay of the Board’s proposed order. He reminded the Board that Dr. Dendrinos has close to 5,000 patients and he doubts that it will be possible to transition that many patients. He suggested that there be at least four or five months and that the sixty days active time occur during the summer time. In the alternative, he suggested that the active period of suspension be served at the back end of the period of probation. There are a number of chronic patients that will be forced to use the emergency room and this will over-tax the health care costs of that community.

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

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

Returning to open session, the Board announced the following decision:

THE BOARD, UPON MOTION MADE AND SECONDED, VOTED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION FOR SIX MONTHS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO HAVE THE ACTIVE TIME TO BE SERVED AT THE END OF THE THREE YEAR PERIOD OF PROBATION. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE BOARD IS AWARE THAT IT ALREADY HAS GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIS PATIENTS WHICH IS MORE THAN AMPLE TIME.

Mr. Conroy noted, for the record, that he may seek an emergent ruling from the Appellate Division.

_________________________________
Karen Criss, R.N., C.N.M.
Vice-President

Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Legal Statement | Accessibility Statement

division: dca home | complaint forms | licensing boards | adoptions | proposals | minutes | consumer protection

departmental: lps home | contact us | news | about us | FAQs | library | employment | programs and units | services a-z

statewide: nj home | my new jersey | people | business | government | departments | search