Tsirelman v. Daines
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12799
2d Cir.2015Background
- Tsirelman was licensed in 1996 and acquired an ownership interest in LaMed in 2000.
- At LaMed, Tsirelman performed synaptic therapy, a non-invasive, drug-free treatment.
- Flatlands billed insurers for a nerve destruction procedure Tsirelman never performed; synaptic therapy was not that procedure.
- OPMC charged Tsirelman in 2007 with fraud-related misconduct based on improper billings.
- After a six-day hearing, the Hearing Committee found fraud by preponderance and revoked his license, imposing a $100,000 fine.
- The Appellate Division affirmed; Tsirelman then sought federal review under Article 78 and federal due-process claims, leading to this federal action and subsequent district court rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity suits | Tsirelman seeks prospective relief against state officials | Officials are protected; claims barred | Eleventh Amendment allows prospective relief against officials in their official capacities |
| Facial challenge to preponderance standard | Preponderance is unconstitutional for fraud-based medical discipline | Standard is constitutionally adequate | Facially constitutional; preponderance is adequate per due process |
| As-applied challenge to preponderance standard | In his case, the standard deprived due process given evidence gaps | Record supported inference under preponderance; no due-process violation | No due-process violation as applied; standard applied properly |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (standard of proof for adjudication; balancing interests)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (risk of error; private vs. governmental interests in due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (factors for evaluating standard of proof in due process)