"The shame of America" fact sheet about Dr. Serafina Corsello and her "war" with the New York State Department of Health — OPMC - Office of Professional Medical Conduct

Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, August-Sept, 2002

6. From the outset, OPMC has given Dr. Corsello's attorneys a difficult time:

* First, the prosecuting attorney refused to share the OPMC "expert's" report with her counsel, despite numerous requests and the well-established right of a physician to obtain such report, until just before the eve of the scheduled hearing.

* Second, the prosecuting attorney has to this date refused to share a 1987 patient file for an inactive patient that, being far beyond the 7-year mandatory requirement for maintenance of a file, was long ago discarded by Dr. Corsello. This refusal has severely impeded ability to defend against charges related to this patient.

* Third, no reasonable attempt was made by OPMC to limit the charges in the context of a pre-hearing conference to those charges which would require an explanation from Dr. Corsello. There are still numerous charges for which the explanation is obvious to anyone familiar with alternative health care and which should be dismissed from the proceeding.

* Fourth, despite her appearance by attorneys, despite numerous written documents showing that she intended to contest every charge and to allege a conspiracy against alternative health care providers as an affirmative defense, the administrative law judge (AU) has ruled, sua sponte, that she failed to file an answer and therefore has defaulted on the charges, that all that remains to be decided is her punishment, and the ALJ has moved to commence the punishment phase in her absence (for remediable health reasons) on the first scheduled day of the hearing.

* Fifth, Section 51.5 of the Regulations of the Health Department make it clear that the necessity to file an answer is optional and not mandatory. Not only is this an act which may be beyond the scope of the ALJ's legal authority, making it subject to judicial review, but it indicates a bias against Dr. Corsello.

* Sixth, the ALJ refused an adjournment for health reasons and suggested that Dr. Corsello should turn in her license and that if she is too ill to appear, she would not be fit to practice medicine under such circumstances. This suggestion is especially shocking in a case where OPMC is condemning a doctor for "abandoning" a patient who never commenced therapy with the doctor and who had a primary care physician.

* Seventh, the ALJ judge refused to permit one of Dr. Corsello's two attorneys to absent himself timely from the hearing room on the first day of the scheduled hearing to obtain a further judicial stay based on her health, again showing bias. In fact the stay was granted by the Court, but too late in the day to impact on the start of the hearing.

* Eighth, based on his default of Dr. Corsello's case and his other comments, it is doubtful that the ALJ will permit Dr. Corsello under any circumstance to put into the record a complete defense against the charges so that it will be necessary to go through several rounds of appeals before Dr. Corsello might be given an adequate chance to vindicate her case. These rounds of appeals are very expensive and could effectively destroy her ability to practice medicine if she is unable to exhaust fully her administrative remedies for financial reasons.