Unpublished Opinions for the Week of May 1, 2017

01-2-3114 In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License of Joachim, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Doctor appealed the suspension of his license after his third disciplinary proceeding for sexual misconduct involving patients and his second conviction for criminal sexual contact with them. He argued that the revocation and penalties and costs assessed were arbitrary and capricious. Doctor stipulated to the facts in the complaint and offered the testimony of a practice that was willing to hire him to treat only male patients in a supervised environment. The court found no basis to reverse the Board’s order. Doctor had engaged in repeated acts of sexual misconduct with different patients spanning over 20 years of practice despite a criminal conviction and having twice been sanctioned by the Board. Additionally, he repeatedly sidestepped previously ordered oversight and lied to the Board. Furthermore, his failure to complete a certified statement of assets precluded any argument of financial hardship.

01-2-3100 Koch v. Bd. of Review, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Claimant appealed from the decision of the Board of Review finding him ineligible for unemployment benefits and liable for a refund. Claimant was employed by Entel Systems, Inc., and on March 11, 2010, wrote a letter to his employer claiming that his supervisor told him that there was no work for him that day, and informing his employer that he would file for unemployment insurance. On his application for benefits, claimant indicated that his unemployment was due to lack of work. The Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance approved the application and paid benefits; however, Entel was also contacted to determine whether claimant was separated for a reason other than lack of work. Based on Entel’s response, the division concluded that claimant had misrepresented his reason for unemployment, and that he had left work voluntarily without good cause. Claimant appealed, alleging that he had refused to perform assigned work because of an unsafe condition. The board rejected the appeal, affirming the division’s determination. On an initial appeal, the court remanded for a determination of the timeliness of Entel’s response. On remand, the board concluded that Entel’s response and appeal of the grant of benefits was prompt, due to claimant’s own misrepresentations about his separation from work and due to an increased workload in the division that delayed communication to Entel. Claimant appealed, arguing that there was no evidence to support the board’s conclusion. The court agreed, finding that the division’s representative merely speculated as to what happened with the communication from Entel, as there was no record of Entel filing a timely response and appeal. Thus, the court reversed the board’s determination and the order finding claimant liable for a refund.