Sufficient Evidence Of Intent

The New York Court of Appeals held that a former public official had violated the state Public Officers Law by submitting an expert affidavit in litigation:

Petitioner worked for the New York State Department of Health (DOH) from 1973 to 1995. During petitioner’s 22-year tenure, he held various senior management positions and served as executive director of a project that developed and implemented New York’s RUGS-II case mix reimbursement system–a system used to determine Medicaid reimbursement rates for nursing homes. Petitioner established a health care consulting firm in 1997 and, in 2004, was paid $11,880 by a group of nursing homes to prepare an expert affidavit to support their litigation challenging the RUGS-II system.

The court found sufficient evidence of intent to sustain the violation:

In this case, petitioner conceded that his actions constituted a violation of the lifetime bar provision. To impose a civil penalty, the Commission needed only to show that petitioner was aware of the nature and circumstances regarding the submission of the expert affidavit on the RUGS-II system, a matter in which he personally participated, and had the conscious objective to prepare the expert affidavit. The Commission did not need to show that petitioner knew the statements in the affidavit violated the lifetime ban or that he purposely acted to violate the law.

(Mike Frisch)