STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

433 River Street, Suite 303 Troy, New York 12180-2299

 

IQ

Antonia C. Novello, MD, MPH. Dennis P, Whalen

Commissioner ?w Executive Deputy Commissioner
a, '1 J. 
 if 2* March 28, 2005
. 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Cindy Fascia, Esq. Catherine Gale, Esq.
Bureau of Professional Medical Gale Dancks, LLC
Conduct 25th Floor 7136 East Genesee Street
Division of Legal Affairs Fayetteville, New York 13066-0097
NYS Department of Health

Corning Tower, ESP
Albany, New York 12237

RE: In the Matter of George Michael Innes, M.D.

Dear Parties:

Enclosed please ?nd the Determination and Order (No. 05-53) of the
Hearing Committee in the above referenced matter. This Determination and Order
shall be deemed effective upon the receipt or seven (7) days a?er mailing by
certi?ed mail as per the provisions of ?230, subdivision 10, paragraph of the
New York State Public Health Law.

Five days after receipt of this Order, you will be required to deliver to the
Board of Professional Medical Conduct your license to practice medicine together
with the registration certi?cate. Delivery shall be by either certi?ed mail or in
person to:

 

Of?ce of Professional Medical Conduct
New York State Department of Health
Hedley Park Place

433 River Street - Fourth Floor

Troy, New York 12180

If your license or registration certi?cate is lost, misplaced or its whereabouts
is otherwise unknown, you shall submit an af?davit to that effect. If subsequently
you locate the requested items, they must then be delivered to the Of?ce of
Professional Medical Conduct in the manner noted above.

As prescribed by the New York State Public Health Law ?230, subdivision
10, paragraph and ?230-c subdivisions 1 through 5, (McKinney Supp. 1992),
"the determination of a committee on professional medical conduct may be
reviewed by the Administrative Review Board for professional medical conduct.?
Either the licensee or the Department may seek a review of a committee
determination.

Request for review of the Committee's determination by the Administrative
Review Board stays penalties other than suspension or revocation until ?nal
determination by that Board. Summary orders are not stayed by Administrative
Review Board reviews.

All notices of review must be served, by certi?ed mail, upon the
Administrative Review Board and the adverse party within fourteen (14) days of
service and receipt of the enclosed Determination and Order.

The notice of review served on the Administrative Review Board should be
forwarded to:

James F. Horan, Esq., Administrative Law Judge
New York State Department of Health

Bureau of Adjudication

Hedley Park Place

433 River Street, Fifth Floor

Troy, New York 12180

 

 

The parties shall have 30 days from the notice of appeal in which to file their
briefs to the Administrative Review Board. Six copies of all papers must also be
sent to the attention of Mr. Horan at the above address and one copy to the other
party. The stipulated record in this matter shall consist of the of?cial hearing
transcript(s) and all documents in evidence.

Parties will be noti?ed by mail of the Administrative Review Board's
Determination and Order.

Sincerely,


gaw.  {731%.

Sean D. O?Brien, Director
Bureau of Adjudication
SDO:djh 
Enclosure

 

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

IN THE MATTER 

BPMC NO. 05-53

 

OF 
DETERMINATION
GEORGE MICHAEL INNES, MD. AND
ORDER

 

 

 

A Notice of hearing, dated January 23, 2004, and a Statement of Charges. dated
January 23. 2004. were served upon the Respondent, GEORGE MICHAEL INNES, .MD.

JOEL H. PAULL, M.D., D.D.S., Chairperson, RICHARD LEE, MD. and STEPHEN
WEAR, duly designated members of the State Board for Professional Medical
Conduct, served as the Hearing Committee (the 'Committee') in this matter pursuant to
Section 230(10)(e) of the Public Health Law. FREDERICK ZIMMER, ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE, served as the Administrative Of?cer.

The Department of Health (?the Department") appeared by DONALD P. BERENS,
JR., ESQ. General Counsel, by CINDY MARIE FASCIA, of Counsel. The
Respondent appeared by GALE 8. DANCKS, LLC, CATHERINE GALE, ESQ. of Counsel.

Evidence was received and witnesses sworn and heard, and transcripts of these
proceedings were made.

After consideration of the entire record. the Committee issues this Determination and

Order.

George lnnee. MD. 1

 

 

 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Answer Filed February 10. 2004

Amended Answer Filed October 25, 2004

Pre-Hearing Conference February 10, 2004

Witnesses for Petitioner Patient A, Patient A's mother, A5.

Richard Braen. M.D.. David C. Brittain,
MD, Patient B. Patient B's mother,
Susan Crump, Carol Currier, 
Ciabotte, Patient C. Patient C's mother.
Patient 0, Tracey Eckstein, Patient F,
Patient F?s mother, Patricia Grant,
Valerie Grossman Aarne. Patient G,
Patient G's husband, Steven Hanks,
M.D.. Employee H,
Employee I, Employee J. Employee K,
Marlinda LaValley. Martha Loveland,
Anita Miller. Nurse M. Nurse N. Nurse
0. Christine Porter,
Employee P. Employee P?s sister,
Em lo ee 0. Employee R, 
Employee 8. Neil Stroman,
Robert Swidler, Esq., Mabel Walker

Witnesses for Respondent George lnnes. M.D.. A.4, Cheryl
DiShaw. Christine Hopkins. Lewis
Jones, Linda Land, Pamela McLenon,
Nichol, Jenna Ponnw'rlz. Jo
Ann Reid. Tamara Robinson. Nicole
Simmons, Melissa Waldeck

Hearing Dates February 18 and 19. May 3, 24 and
25, June and 8, August 5, 9, 10. 23
and 24, September 20and October 25, 2004

Deliberation Dates January 6. 7, 20 and 21 2005

 

George tunes. MD. 2

 

STATEMENT QF CASE

The State Board for Professional Misconduct is a duly authorized professional
disciplinary agency of the State of New York (?230 of the Public Health Law of the
State of New York [hereinafter 

This case was brought by the New York State Department of Health, Office of
Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter ?Petitioner? or ?Department") pursuant to ?230 of
the P.H.L. Via a Statement of Charges, dated January 23, 2004, GEORGE MICHAEL
INNES, M.D. (?Respondent?) was charged with fifty speci?cations of professional
misconduct, as de?ned in ?6530 of the Education Law of the State of New York (?Education
Law'). Various amendments to the Statement of Charges were accepted by the
Administrative Law Judge, on June 8, 2004 (T .1493-1495) and on August 23, 2004 (T.
2246-2250). An Amended Statement of Charges was offered and accepted into evidence
on September 20, 2004, which added Factual Allegations through and five
additional specifications. Respondent was ultimately charged with twenty three
specifications of committing conduct in the practice of medicine which evidence moral
unfitness to practice medicine, ten specifications of willfully harassing, abusing or
intimidating a patient either physically or verbally, two specifications of revealing patient
related information without patient consent, seven specifications of practicing medicine
fraudulentfy. five specifications of practicing medicine with negligence on more than one
occasion, four specifications of willfully making or filing a false report, two speci?cations of
failing to maintain a record which accurately re?ects the evaluation and treatment of the
patient and two speci?cations of violating Section 2803-d or 2805-k of the Public Health

Law.

Geome inns. MD. 3

 

 

Both parties stipulated on the first hearing date, February 18, 2004, that they would
waive the statutory requirement that the hearing be completed in 120 days (T. 87-88).

On the August 5, 2004 hearing date, Respondent?s attomey informed the
Administrative Law Judge that Respondent would be absent from the hearing due to 'an
illness which required his hospitalization. There was no notice given to the Administrative
Law Judge that Respondent would be absent prior to the hearing. Respondent?s attorney
attended the hearing and requested an adjournment which was denied (Transcript of 8/5
intra-hearing conference at 10:00 am. T. 2-6). The Department had brought in a witness,
Nurse 0, from Alaska to testify at the August 5 hearing. Respondent's attorney was
available to cross examine Nurse 0, Employee and the other witnesses presented by the
Department on that day. The Administrative Law Judge speci?cally acknowledged the
possibility on the record that if there was a need, witnesses could be recalled for further
cross examination (T. 1644 and Transcript of 8/5 intra-hearing conference at 10:00 am.
T.5). Although, Respondent subsequently testi?ed that he was unable to remember Nurse
0 3945) or to remember giving a backrub to Employee (T. 4035), no request was
made during the course of the hearing to bring back these individuals, or any of the other
witnesses who testified on August 5, 2004, for further cross examination.

Department?s Exhibit 23, a Verified Complaint ?led with the New York State Division
of Human was entered into evidence on August 5, 2004 and provided to the
Committee with the identity of the complainant redacted. The Committee was instructed
that the complainant had ?led the Verified Complaint which alleged sexual harassment by
Respondent subsequent to 1991 and sometime during a period between 1991 and 1996, a
period prior to the issuance of Dr. Krueger's report on September 1. 1999 (Dept?s Ex. 8).

The Committee was further instructed that the complainant was not the person whose

George Imus. MD. 4

 

complaint gave rise to the Memorandum of Agreement which Respondent entered into
while at Albany Memorial Hospital (Dept's Ex. 11A). The Committee was, also, instructed
that the complaint went solely to the issue of Respondent?s notice and awareness of
allegations, instances or accusations of sexual misconduct against him prior to the alleged
incidents in the Watertown area (T. 1761-1765).

At the conclusion of the Department?s case in chief, on September 22, 2004, the
Administrative Law Judge instructed the Committee to disregard Factual Allegations 
and through and the corresponding specifications (T. 3287). This instruction
was given as a result of the Department's failure to present competent proof concerning
those allegations and related specifications during; the presentation of its case. The
Committee was instructed that they could only consider Factual Allegation in the context
of the allegations contained in Factual Allegation M, that it was alleged that Nurse 
had reported to her supervisor allegations made by Nurse with the result that Respondent
engaged in certain conduct toward Nurse in Albany Memorial Hospital's utility room
and/or medication room.

The Administrative Law Judge also instructed the Committee with regard to a
number of lawsuits against Respondent concerning which the Committee heard testimony
or received documentary evidence. The Committee was instructed that although it could
consider the outcome of these lawsuits, it was in no way bound by the results of these I
lawsuits and needed to consider all of the evidence and testimony with respect to the
allegations in the Statement of Charges.

The charges to be considered by the Committee, included among other matters,
numerous allegations of sexual misconduct by Respondent towards both patients and

others beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through the course of the hearing, up

George lnnes, MD. 5

 

 

 

until the summer of 2004. A copy of the Amended Statement of Charges is attached to this
Determination and Order as Appendix I.

Voluminous testimony was presented by both parties during the course of the
hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing on October 25, 2004, the Administrative Law
Judge inquired of Respondent if there was anything further that needed to be presented,
and. also, stated that Respondent could even inform the Administrative Law Judge the next
day if there were anything compelling that needed to addressed. Respondent's attorney
replied. ?We have no further proof.? (lntra-Hearing Transcript of 10/25/04, pgs. 12-13). I

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

The following Findings of Fact were made after a review of the entire record in this
matter. Unless otherwise noted, all ?ndings and conclusions set forth below are the
unanimous determinations of the Hearing Committee. Con?icting evidence. if any, was
considered and rejected in favor of the cited evidence. Numbers below in parentheses
refer to exhibits (denoted by the pre?x or transcript page numbers These
citations refer to evidence found persuasive by the Committee in arriving at a particular
?nding.

Having heard testimony and considered documentary evidence presented by the
Petitioner and Respondent. respectively. the Committee hereby makes the following
?ndings of fact:

1. GEORGE MICHAEL INNES, M.D.. the Respondent, was authorized to practice
medicine in New York State on February 16. 1988. by the issuance of license number

173637 by the New York State Education Department (uncontested).

George lnnes. MD. 6

 

CONDUCT TOWARD PATIENTSIEMPLOYEESISTAFF

 

2. A physician-patient relationship exists when a physician is using or is purporting to use
his professional knowledge in dealing with a person. If the other person is relying on
the physician to act in the role of a physician, and places trust in the physician based on
the assumption that the physician will act according to that role. a physician-patient
relationship exists. If a physician is asked or offers to help a person with a medical or
problem. a physician-patient relationship exists (Braen, T. 2270-2271).

3. No ?nancial renumeration is required for a physician-patient relationship to exist.
Furthermore, even if the physician does not document the encounter. a physician-
patient relationship still exists. The fact that the physician did not make a medical
record of an encounter where he offered or was asked to use his professional
knowledge or skill, or purported to be acting in such a role, does not change the fact
that a physician-patient relationship exists (Braen,T. 2270-2271).

4. If an Emergency Department physician is asked to or offers to provide treatment to a
co?worker, that staff person is a patient for the purposes of the treatment encounter.
During that encounter, a physician-patient relationship exists (Braen. T. 2271-2272).

5. During the encounter. a staff person places trust in the physician to treat them in a
medical capacity. The same standards apply to that interaction which apply to any
physician-patient relationship. The patient?s comfort, care and trust have the same
priority. The basis of the relationship and theistandards to be observed are the same
(Braen, T. 2272).

6. The Director and Assistant Director of an Emergency Department play important roles

in setting the tone for the conduct of staff. They are role models for how people,

George Inna. MD. '7

 

 

 

patients and staff, are to be treated in the Department. and their behavior may have a
de?nite effect on how the Emergency Department functions (Braen, T. 2273-2278).

7. The more authority or perceived authority the person engaging in the inappropriate
behavior has, the more intimidated and reluctant to complain the staff may be. If the
person engaging in the inappropriate behavior is known to have not only a professional
but a close personal friendship with people in powerful or authoritative positions, that
may also intimidate staff from making complaints (Braen. T. 2500-2501).

8. Unwelcome sexual comments are inappropriate in the workplace. When the person
making the comments is in a position of authority, has or may be perceived to have the
ability to in?uence jobs and livelihoods. the comments and conduct can be more
egregious. Such comments and conduct by a person in position of authority may make
a subordinate feel threatened and fearful. When a physician engages in such behavior,
helshe violates the ethical standards of the profession (Braen. (T. 2919-2920).

9. Patient comfort and trust require that patients' privacy and modesty be respected.
Failing to do so is a deviation from the standard of care (Braen. T. 2472-2473: 2914-

2915).

10. An Emergency Department physician's encounter with a patient is often the ?rst and
perhaps only time the physician sees that patient. An Emergency Department physician
must be able to generate trust and comfort from the beginning or as soon as possible in
the encounter with the patient. The way a physician speaks to a patient and the way a
physician deals with a patient?s family are important parts of the Emergency Department
physician's function (Braen. T. 2268-2269).

11. Emergency Department physicians evaluate patients in a focused fashion, based on a

chief complaint. The focused Emergency Department examination is different from the

George inn?. MD. 3

 

 

 

 

annual physical examination a patient receives in his primary care physician's of?ce.

For most patients seen in the Emergency Department, the focus is on the particular

problem that brought the patient to the Emergency Department (Braen, T. 2266-2268).
EAIJENJLA

12. On June 29, 2001, Patient A, a ?fteen year old female, was admitted to the emergency
room at Via Health/Newark Hospital in Newark. New York and was assessed as having
overdosed on Celebrex 100 mg. after ingesting approximately half a bottle of her
grandfather?s pills (Dept's Ex. 3).

13.Respondent told Melissa Waldeck, one of the nurses caring for Patient A, that he
wanted to speak to Patient A alone (Valerie Grossman. T. 1040-1041).

14.There was no policy in effect at VIA Health requiring a chaperone to be present when a
physician examined a patient (Waldeck. T. 3394).

15. Patient A was brought into a room. gowned and a nurse administered charcoal to
Patient A. and then Patient A was left alone in a room with Respondent (Patient A.


16.When Respondent was alone with Patient A. Respondent said to her, ?It's time to go
under the cover.? Respondent then lifted Patient A's examination gown, in a manner
which exposed her breasts, and than touched Patient A's breasts (Patient A, T.1797-
1801).

17. The examination of a female patient?s breasts by a male physician in the absence of a
chaperone fails to meet accepted standards of medical care (Braen. T. 2970-2973).

18. Respondent asked Patient A if she was sexually active or had received anal sex or if

she had given or received oral sex (Patient A. 

George Inna. MD. 9

 

 

19.When presented with a minor female patient with suicidal ideation in an emergency
room situation, it is within accepted standards of medical care for the emergency room
physician to question the patient concerning her sexual history (Braen, T. 2973-2973).

20.Respondent did not document in Patient A?s medical record that he had examined her
breasts or that he had asked Patient A questions pertaining to sex (Dept's Ex. 3).



21. On December 17, 2002. Patient B, a fifteen year old female, presented to the
Emergency Department of Canton-Potsdam Hospital for an evaluation, after her school
noti?ed Child Protective Services that Patient had bruises on her arm (Dept's Ex. 4).

22. Respondent examined Patient in her street clothing and did not request that Patient
be gowned (Patient B, innes; 

23. Patient ?Ohms, T. 4733).

24. In the course of examining Patient B, Respondent attempted to unhook Patient B?s bra.
and had dif?culty in doing so. Respondent stated, used to be good at this.? (Patient B,
T. 2376-2378; Innes, T. 4733).

25. Respondent, after Patient B?s bra was removed. examined each of Patient B?s breasts
from undemeath to look for bruises (Patient B, T. 2379).

26. Respondent then asked Patient to drop her skirt and she proceeded to do so (Patient
B. T. 2380-2381).

27. Respondent then pushed Patient thighs apart to look for bruises (Patient B?s
Mother, T. 2418).

28. Respondent then stated that it was obvious that Patient was sexually active.

promiscuous and that she dressed promiscuoust (Patient B, T. 2382-2383).

 

MD. 10

 

29. Respondent left the room. When he returned, he stated that Patient should not

 

dress so provocatively (Patient B's mother, T. 2420).

30. On January 12, 2003, Patient C. a twelve year old female, was admitted to the
Emergency Department at Canton-Potsdam Hospital with a diagnosis of suicidal
ideation. Patient had recently broke up with her boyfriend (Dept?s Ex. 5; Patient C's

mother, T. 1310-1311).

31. At the time of Patient C?s admission, her mother was employed 
(Patient C?s mother, T. 1299).

32. Respondent and a nurse, Sue Crump. attended to Patient while Patient C's mother

 

waited in the break room. Nurse came to the break room and informed Patient
C?s mother that Respondent wished to talk to Patient alone. Patient C?s mother did
not object and Respondent was subsequently left alone with Patient (Patient C?s
mother. T. 1313; Respondent, T. 4777-4778).

33.Respondent, while alone with Patient C, among other things. questioned her as to
whether she was sexually active, whether anyone had ever touched her vagina or
whether she had touched her boyfriend's genitalia or put his penis in her mouth. Patient
answered no to all of these questions except that she acknowledged that she did
allow her boyfriend to put his hand down her pants (Respondent, T. 4780; Patient C.
1385). 

34. Respondent did not document in Patient C?s medical record either his questions or her

responses (Dept's Ex. 5).

George tunes. MD. 1 1

 

 

 


35. On November 11, 2002, Patient D, a twenty year old male, was admitted to the

Emergency Department at Canton-Potsdam Hospital with a complaint of severe pain

when urinating, and frequency (Dept?s Ex. 6, pg. 16; Patient D, T. 885-886).

36.Patient was accompanied to the Emergency Department by his friend. 

"Patient 0, T. 880-881).

37. Patient was not having discharge from his penis and when questioned by Respondent

 

and others. Patient gave no history of having discharge from his penis or of having
had venereal disease (Patient D, T. 883. 896, 920; ?Currier, T. 941;
Grant, T. 959-960; Dept's Ex. 6, pg. 16).

38. On questioning by Respondent. Patient told Respondent that he had yellow stains
on his underwear. Such questioning is appropriate when a physician suspects venereal
disease (lnnes, T. 3831, 3870; Braen, T. 2889-2890).

39.The yellow staining plus Patient D's dysuria provided a reasonable basis for
Respondent to suspect gonorrhea (lnnes, T. 3831 . 8870).

40.Respondent?s examination of Patient was conducted with in the
examining room. After Patient stated that he had burning pain on urination including
pain in his rectum and testicles, Respondent directed Patient to drop his pants and
examined Patient D's testicles. Respondent told Patient in_ presence
that he had gonorrhea (Patient o, T. 883, 885-889; 

41.Respondent did' not request that leave the room before making his
diagnosis, or inquire whether Patient minded if?emained in the room

Patient 0, T. 883. 889).

George Innes. MD. 12

 

42.When Patient stated to Respondent that he had not slept with anyone besides his
girlfriend, and that his girlfriend had not slept with anyone since they had been together,
Respondent is said to have replied that maybe Patient D's girlfriend was not such ?a
good girl' _Patient D, T. 885-886).

43. Gonorrhea would be the most likely diagnosis for a twenty year old patient with
dysuria. The presence of penile discharge, or microbial proof through an adequate
microscopic examination, culture or other antibody testing, can form a basis for a
de?nitive diagnosis of gonorrhea (Braen. T. 2852-2853, 2896).

44.A culture had been obtained from Patient after he urinated. Respondent believed that
the urination presumably diminished the ef?cacy. of the culture (lnnes, T. 3826-3828,
3894-3895; see also, Grant 961-962; Braen, T. 

45. Respondent recorded in Patient D?s medical record that Patient had of
"clap" in past. Patient with yellow penile discharge." (Dept-'s Ex. 29, pg. 3 and Ex. 10,
pg. 5).

46. Respondent treated Patient with eight Zithromax tablets. 2 grams po (by mouth) and

with one tablet in the emergency room, and prescribed 100 mg. of

to be taken twice daily (Patient D, T. 887; Dept's Ex. 20).

47.After leaving the emergency room. Patient became ill and vomited during the trip back

to hi? house. He vomited and had diarrhea when he arrived at the 

house (Patient D, T. 890-891).

48.While Zithromax by mouth can result in side effects such as vomiting and diarrhea,

Respondent's treatment of Patient with the antibiotics he prescribed was within the

standard of care for treatment of a presumptive diagnosis of gonorrhea (Braen, T.

2876-2879).

George lnnes, MD. 13

 

 

49.Patient called his girlfriend and asked her to come over. When she arrived, Patient 
was still ill and she telephoned Respondent to tell him Patient was vomiting and had
diarrhea (A.5 [Patient D's girlfriend], T. 860-863; Patient D, T. 891-893).

50.Respondent did not advise that Patient should be reevaluated in the Emergency
Department or that his medication regimen should be altered. Instead, Respondent
advised that Patient have some crackers or bread and Maalox (Patient D, T. 893; A5
[Patient D?s girlfriend], T. 863).

51.Respondent did not record this conversation in Patient D's medical record (Dept?s Ex. 6
and 29).



52.0n September 10, 2002, Patient E, a seventeen year old female, presented to the
Emergency Department at Canton-Potsdam Hospital, with a complaint of back pain
after another player collided with her during a soccer match and fell on top of her
(Dept?s Ex. 7. pg. 3; T. 1135-1136).

53. Respondent ordered x-rays of Patient E's lumbosacral spine and her pelvis (Innes, T.
3769).

54. Respondent told Patient E's parents that the x-rays were negative and that she had
contusions and muscle spasms (Patient E's mother, T. 1139; Dept's Ex. 7, pg. 2).

55. Patient E's discharge instructions state that she had a diagnosis of back/pelvic
contusion and conjunctivitis other right eye. She was instructed to take Motrin 600 mg.
one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed, and to apply Opthalmic
Ointment to both eyes every six hours. Her school discharge information sheet states

?no for 3 days?. (Dept's Ex. 7, pgs. 8, 11).

George lnnes. MD. 14

 

 

56.Respondent reviewed the lumbrosacral x-ray but misread it as negative. Respondent
learned of the misread when he was contacted by the hospital?s radiologist (lnnes, T.
3769-3774).

57.Upon returning home, Patient E?s mother found that Respondent had left a telephone
message to call him. Patient was still in great pain. When Patient E?s mother
returned his call, Respondent told her that the radiologist had read the x-ray as showing
a compression fracture of lumbar vertebra number one and that Patient E?s treatment
would remain the same, no for three days and a warm bathtub or warm
compresses (Patient E?s mother, T. 1143-1144).

58.There was no pressing need for Respondent to have had Patient seen by an
orthopedic surgeon (Braen, T. 2310). There was nothing more Respondent could have
done for Patient beyond arranging for an orthopedist or Patient E's primary care
physician to see Patient (Braen, 

59.Patient had an appointment to see her primary care physician the following day for
conjunctivitis (Patient E?s mother, T. 1146).

60. Respondent documented the misread of the x-ray and his post discharge conversation
with Patient E?s mother on a continuation sheet to the medical record which was
subsequently lost (lnnes. T. 3774-3779).


61. In the summer of 1998, Patient F, was a part time

employee? was employed by 

a? (Patient F, T. 331).

 

George lnnes. MD. 1 5

 

 

 

62. On July 24, 1998, the last day of the picnic was held for students.
parents and other family members and the staff of the-s at Respondent?s house
(lnnes. T. 4317-4318; Patient F. T. 336-337).

63. Patient F?s family had a prior connection with Respondent in his capacity as a
physician. - Patient F?s aunt had been brought to the Emergency
Department of Samaritan Medical Center. Respondent was the physician there who
interacted with Patient F?s family. Patient F's family had expressed a very high opinion
of Respondent based on their experience with him (Patient F, T. 334-335).

64.Patient rode with Respondent and his children from the to
Respondent?s house (Patient C, T. 338-340).

65. Respondent asked Patient about her personal life including whether she had a
boyfriend. Respondent asked Patient how long she had been dating her boyfriend,
and Patient responded that they had been dating for ?ve years. since she was sixteen
(T. 343-344).

66. Respondent replied that if she had been dating her boyfriend for so long, she was
going to need a 'Sugar Daddy? in her life to get the affairs out of her system (T. 344).
67.Respondent raised the issue of a skin rash that Patient had previously had and
suggested that he could check it out with his ?bacterial light?. Patient 'F?s rash had been
on her arm and was no longer causing Patient problems beyond her putting a little

calamine lotion on it (Patient F. T. 341-343).

68. When they arrived at Respondent's home. Patient was shown around the house.
Shortly aftenivards, while the children were swimming, Respondent threw Patient who
was wearing a T- shirt and shorts over her bathing suit into his pool. Respondent knew

where Patient F's bag was and he brought it to her. Patient took out her contact

George Innes. MD. 1 6

 

lenses, removed her wet clothing and remained in the pool in her bathing suit. When
she emerged from the pool. she put a dry pair of shorts over her bathing suit bottom and
participated in the _(Patient F, T. 349-353).

69.Following the awards ceremony, in front of some of the participants at the picnic,
Respondent began speaking about the ?bacterial light? and asked Patient F, ?Are you
ready to see the light now??. Because Patient trusted Respondent, she agreed in
front of these people to see the ?bacterial light? (Patient F, T. 354-356; Innes. T. 4324).

70. Respondent testi?ed that he told Patient ?This is a good time for me to take a look at
the rash.? (T. 4324).

71. Respondent took Patient to a staircase on the outside of the house that led to the
second ?oor. Patient went up the staircase. onto the second ?oor of the house and
was then led her around to a back staircase that led to the downstairs of the house and
to a tiny room that was off a big recreation room. The room was small, had tools in it
and a door. Respondent closed the door of the room behind them and turned on the
?bacterial light" which had a handle on it. The light itself looked like a ?uorescent tube
and glowed a purplish hue. Respondent had turned the room light off. and the ?bacterial
light" was the only light on in the room (T. 356-358)

72. Respondent asked Patient to stand with her hands out to her sides and to turn her

back to him and when she had, he directed the light down her back and pulled Patient

F?s shorts and bathing suit bottom away from her body, exposing her buttocks and.

then. directed the light on that area (Patient F. T. 358-359).

73. When Patient tumed backed around, Respondent grabbed the top of Patient F's

bathing suit and exposed one breast (Patient F, T. 360-361).

George lnnes, MD. 1 7

 

 

 

74.Respondent. then, grabbed the front of Patient F?s shorts and bathing suit and pulled
them away from her body, exposing her pubic area, and moved the ?bacterial light" so a
that it shone on Patient F?s groin area, and Respondent said ?Not even any bacteria
down there? (Patient F. T. 361-362). 

75. Respondent?s conduct during his examination deviated from acceptable medical
standards and had no legitimate medical purpose because the rash had been on
Patient F?s arm and had healed (Braen. T. 2983-2984, 2988).

76. Patient left the room and was confused and distressed. She remained at the picnic
after the parents and children left because her supervisor encouraged her to do so as
staff would be discussing the program (Patient'F, 

77.After the parents and children left, alcoholic beverages were served and consumed by
Patient and others (Innes. T. 4340-4343).

78.During the course of the latter part of the day, Patient needed to use the bathroom
and Respondent followed her into his house to assist her due to ooncems that she was
inebriated (lnnes, T. 4347-4349).

79. Respondent stated to Patient F, know you?re too drunk to go to work. You need
to call in to work.? (Patient F, T. 376).

80.8ubsequently. Patient F. Respondent and a number of other people were sitting around
a camp?re, and Patient was eating the salt off a pretzel rod. Respondent remarked
that ?he would like to see what she could do with a banana" (lnnes, T. 4350).

81.Patient F, eventually, told her colleagues, about
Respondent's conduct toward her that day. She left the picnic shortly thereafter and
spent the night at (Paitent F. T. 382-386; 


George lnnes. MD. 18

 

82. Patient ultimately reported the matter to the state police. Testimony was taken before
a grand jury and a trial date was scheduled (Patient F, T. 388-393).
83.Flespondent entered into a plea agreement and received an adjournment in
contemplation of dismissal including conditions that he obtain counselling, that there be
an order of protection for Patient and that he not make any public statements in
contradiction to the following statement which Respondent read in open court;
On July 24, 1998, my wife and entertained at our home students who

participated in the 

l?at-w as well as the parents of

those students and the moderators of that Program.
In the course of that day, engaged in conduct,
resulting in the charges, that was inappropriate .
and that was offensive to Patient My conduct
was uninvited,?was my sole responsibility, and was
in no way the result of anything that Patient did.

I apologize to Patient and to her family. 

(Patient F, T. 395-396; Stipulation of parties, T. 396-399; Dept?s Ex. 15).

EAJJENZLG I
84. On July 5, 1999 shortly before 11:00 pm., Patient G. a 31 year old female 
?presented to the Emergency Department at Samaritan Medical Center

 

in Watertown with a severe right sided headache and nausea. Patient who had a

 

Patient F's name is coded. Her real name was used when Respondent read the statement.

George Innes, MD. 19

 

 

history of migraine headaches was treated by Respondent. The Emergency Department
staff typically treated Patient G's headaches with injections of Demerol and Phenergan
(Dept?s Ex. 25, pg. 4; Patient G. T. 1971-1972).

85. Patient vomited in the waiting room and was bypassed directly into a room in the
back because of the severity other (Patient G, T. 1973-1974).

86. Patient was well known by hospital staff because of her frequent visits for
headaches and because of the substantial medication necessary for her migraines (T.
4549-4550).

87. Respondent ordered Demerol 100 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. to make Patient 
comfortable before embarking on a more complete history and physical (lnnes, T. 4551:
Dept?s Ex. 25).

88. Respondent returned about a half-hour later and performed a head to toe evaluation
including a basic neurological examination and an examination of the four quadrants of
Patient G's abdomen. He used a hand over hand motion to palpate her abdomen and
listened to her abdomen with a stethoscope due to concerns about Patient G's vomiting
(lnnes, T. 4554-4557, 4572-4573).

89. Using a stethoscope, Respondent listened to Patient G?s heart. It was unnecessary for
Respondent to remove Patient G?s bra to do so because she had no pulmonary or chest
complaints and he did not have a concern about her lungs. Rather. he was just
listening to her lungs and heart as part of a screening evaluation (T . 4555, 4574, 4591 

90. Patient G?s husband claimed that when he walked into the examination room, he found

Respondent with his hand down Patient G?s pants. and that he complained to a nurse

who did not respond to his complaint (Patient G?s husband, T. 2156-2158).

George lnnee. MD. 20

 

 

91. Patient G's husband did not call an administrator. did not go to the nurse's station and
complain and permitted a nurse to give his wife a second Demerol injection.
Approximately 75 minutes transpired between the time of the 2"d Demerol 100 mg.-
administration and the time of Patient G's discharge (Patient G's Husband, T. 2153-
2161; Dept?s Ex. 25).

92. Patient ?led a complaint with Samaritan Medical Center at approximately 9:00 AM the
next morning (Patient G, T. 1993-1994).

93.Patient commenced a civil lawsuit for money damages against Respondent and
Samaritan Medical Center and settled the lawsuit against Samaritan Medical Center for
a sum of money (Patient G, T. 2057-2060).

94.Patient G's husband testi?ed that he drove up to Respondent?s house less than a week
after the hospital visit "to beat the shit out of him" but admitted that he gave-contrary
testimony during his deposition testimony in the civil action because he ?didn't think it

I really mattered.? (Patient 6? Husband, T. 2151-2152, 2168-2169). 

95. The lawsuit against Respondent was tried before a jury which returned a unanimous
verdict in favor of Respondent in less than an hour of deliberations. Patient G's
subsequent appeal was dismissed because'Patient failed to timely perfect the appeal
(L 2065-2066; Resp Ex. 0 and 0-1). 

96. Prior to Patient G's presentation on July 5. 1999 to the hospital. she read in the

newspaper about the Patient allegations. FUrthermore, the sexual harassment lawsuit

commenced by employee had received prominent billing in the local newspaper (T.

2097. 4560-4563).

George lnnes. MD. 2 1

 

 

97. On two occasions, Tamara Robinson, an emergency room clerk, observed Patient 
and W, Employee H, to be deep in conversation. One occasion
occurred in the spring of 1999 (T. 2785-2786, 2816, 2817).

98. Mabel Walker is involved with numerous civic organizations in the Watertown area
including numerous committees which operate in conjunction with Samaritan Medical
Center. She is not an employee of the hospital and has no official capacity or business
in which she deals with patient complaints (Walker, T. 2177-2185).

99. Respondent disclosed to Ms. Walker that Patient had complained about his care, and
asked Ms. Walker to arrange a meeting between Patient and himself to discuss her
concerns and resolve the complaint. Ms. Walker knew that Respondent would have
cared for Patient in the Emergency Department (Innes, T. 4563-4565, 4578-4581).

100. Patient ultimately received a. telephone message from ?who had been
contacted by Ms. Walker, and who had worked with Patient in ?k
Patient decided to tape record the conversation when she returned the telephone call
to Ms. Jones (T. 2004-2010). 

101. Patient and her husband bought a ?tap? at Radio Shack and attached it to their
phone and returned Ms. Jones? telephone call (Patient G, 

102. ?iold Patient that she knew Patient had ?a problem with a doctor in
the Emergency Room?, and that a friend of hers, whom she later identi?ed as Mrs.
Walker, knew the doctor and had asked if she could call Patient and talk
to her. ?said Mrs. Walker ?had related this story about your [Patient G's]
problem?, and intimated that she knew what had happened to Patient by hearing it
from others. -told Patient that Mrs. Walker said that Respondent was very

George Inna. MD. 22

 

 

 

worried that Patient would pursue her complaint and that he would lose his medical
license (Patient G, T. 2079-2080; Dept?s Ex. 16).
EMELDJLEEII

103. Employee was originally hired by Samaritan Medical Center W.

?and was employed in that capacity from -until .4

(Employee H, T. 539).

104. Employee worked for- 
On one occasion. J. returned to her

of?ce to ?nd a three page note from Employee saying that- was using her

 

and was not paying her fairly. As a result, Employee walked off her job temporarily.
There was a problem with absenteeism due to Employee H's migraine headaches
(Reid. T. 2727, 2730-2733).

105. When Respondent became 
applied Wm was ultimately hired 
?(Employee H. T. 539-541).

106. Employee was an employee of Samaritan Medical Center which paid her salary
out of the nurse manager?s budget (Employee H, T. 544; Nichol, T. 2525-2526).

107. Respondent and Employee engaged in jovial teasing. Respondent could be a

little salty at times and made remarks such as "Blow me." (T. 3345- 3346). .

 

108. In the fall of 1998. Employee asked Respondent if there was anything that she
could do for him, and he responded, ?if you want to help my day, give me a blow job.?
Employee left the of?ce and walked to the nearby minor treatment or Fast Track area

where Martha Loveland worked (Employee H, T. 563-564; Loveland. T. 769, 772).

George Innes. MD. 2 3

 

 

109. Employee told Ms. Loveland that Respondent had asked her for a blow job
(Loveland, T. 771, 779-780; Employee H, T. 564).

110. Nichol was a staff nurse at Samaritan Medical Center beginning in 1981 and
assumed the position of nurse manager in March 1998. She had daily contact with
Employee (Nichol, T. 2520-2521, 2525-2526).

111. Employee frequently complained to Ms. Nichol about Dr. Naradzay who was.
?t and about her personal problems including financial
difficulties, child support issues and her ill mother (Nichol, T. 2527-2537).

112. Employee suffered from serious migraine headaches and cared for her ill mother.
As a result, she missed substantial work time and at one point was hospitalized for four
days. Employee requested that physician notes be placed in her personnel file to
substantiate that her absences were due to ill health (Employee H, T. 579-588, 867-
672; 

113. Employee testified that she needed more income to pay her bills (Employee H, T.
581).

114. Employee was unhappy with Respondent because 
(Employee H, 646-650).

115. Employee felt intimidated and threatened by Dr. Naradzay and complained to
Respondent about Dr. Naradzay being demeaning at times (T. 657-659).

116. Employee frequently con?ded in ?and sought her help and advice even
after she began working for Respondent. While Employee complained about
Respondent occasionally, the complaints concerned l-and were

never of a sexual nature. Employee had positive things to say about Respondent
whom she viewed as a very generous person with staff 

 

George Inns. MD. 24

117. Employee found an e-mail from Respondent to Tim Ryan, Director of the Human
Resources Department, dated March 18, 1999, which had been left on her desk by a
third party. The e-mail requested information on helping Employee obtain disability
due to her severe migraines. Respondent stated that 

(Resp's Ex. Employe H, T. 583-585, 685).

118. Via a May 6, 1999 letter, Employee resigned from her position at Samaritan
Medical Center. Employee stated that she found it necessary to resign due to her
"moral, ethical and personal convictions?, and noted she had 
(Resp's Ex. E).

119. Employee H's last day of work was on May 21. 1999. Although Employee had not
discussed a lawsuit with management before her exit interview, she ?led a civil lawsuit
seeking millions of dollars in damages for 10 different causes of action, including sexual
harassment, against the hospital and Respondent, within 3 days of her departure
(Employee H, T. 590-591. 612-615, 720-725).

120. Ms. Nichol was surprised by Employee H's resignation and assumed it was related
to her poor working relationship with Dr. Naradzay. Furthermore, Employee was
having signi?cant problems with absenteeism as the result of health problems. Ms.
Nichol was surprised when she learned of Employee H's lawsuit as she had no
knowledge of the alleged sexual misconduct by Respondent (Nichol. T. 2526-2531).

121. was not surprised that Employee quit her job but was surprised that she

claimed the resignation was related to sexual harassment, and that she had ?led a

sexual harassment lawsuit 

George Innes. MD. 2 5

 

 

 

122.  last contact with Employee was a phone message in 2003 in which
Employee asked for her help in her lawsuit against Respondent (Reid. T. 2745-2749).

123. Employee never put anything in writing about the ongoing sexual harassment by
Respondent (Employee H, T. 610).

124. Employee gave Respondent numerous presents during the period in which the

alleged harassment occurred, HM
(Employee H, T. 697).

125. Employee was not afraid of speaking her mind to Respondent, and on one
occasion, slapped him because she was outraged at his comments (Employee H, T. 28- .
629)

126. Employee was observed. on at least two occasions, in conversation with Patient 
prior to the commencement of lawsuits by Patients and against Respondent
(Robinson, T. 2786-2790).

127. Employee requested that a oo-worker, Christine Hopkins. pretend she was a .

newspaper reporter. and asked her to interview and photograph a woman whom she
suspected was having an affair with her husband. so that Employee could pass out
brochures warning others that the woman could be stalking him. She also complained
that people were going through her drawers and things were missing from her of?ce.
and that she was concerned that a co-worker was trying to take her job (Hopkins. T.
3298. 3301).

128. Shortly after Employee resigned, she approached Ms. Hopkins and asked that she
join her in a lawsuit against the hospital and Respondent. Employee suggested that

because previous lawsuits had settled out of court. it was as if Respondent had pled

George lnnes. MD. 26

 

guilty and people would be more apt to believe them than ReSpondent (Hopkins, T.
3303-3309; 2745-2749).

129. Employee settled her lawsuit with the hospital. Her lawsuit against Respondent
was ultimately dismissed (Employee H, T. 591-596, 716-717).

130. Respondent shared e?mail jokes and cartoons with Employee which had sexual
overtones but none were graphic or pornographic (lnnes, T. 4451-4452, 4478).

131. Ms. Hopkins was a recipient of an e-mail Christmas card which Employee claimed
to have found upsetting. The e-mail was not sexually explicit, was not pornographic,
was 'cute', and Ms. Hopkins even fonrvarded it on to her mother (Hopkins, T. 3296-
2397).



132. Employee I, a? at Albany Memorial Hospital in 1991, was evaluated
by Respondent as part of an employee exam which took place in an examination room
at the hospital (Employee I, T. 1699. 1706; lnnes, T. 4094).

133. Employee l's examination would normally have been conducted by Mike Briggs, a
physicians? assistant who was out of work that day (Employee I, T. 1704).

134. As Associate Director of the Albany Memorial Employee Health Department.

- Respondent perlormed physical examinations from time to time (lnnes. T. 4094).

135. Respondent insisted that Employee I put on a gown for her examination but Patient I
refused (Employee I, T. 1721; lnnes, T. 4095-4096).

136. Respondent unhooked Employee l's bra (Innes, T. 4096).

137. Respondent pushed up Employee l?s bra in a manner which exposed her breasts
(Employee I, T. 1709). .

. George lnnes. MD. 27

 

 

138. Employee I then terminated the examination and left the examination room
(Employee l, T. 1709-1710).

139. Respondent commented that ?Today?s my lucky Michael would be upset he
wasn't here today? (Employee l, T. 1713).

140. After Employee I left the room, Respondent shouted down the hallway ?You're
fucking crazy? (Employee l, T. 1710-1711).

141. Employee I eventually entered a formal written complaint against Respondent
(Employee LT. 1713-1714).

142. Respondent was employed at Albany Memorial Hospital through Capital Region
Emergency Medicine, P.C. (lnnes, T. 4136-4138).

143. Following Employee l's complaint, Respondent signed a Memorandum of
Agreement on July 25. 1991 between CREM and himself. Among other things,
Respondent agreed to and continually examine his practice of medicine
to ensure that his behavior and procedures could not be misperceived by any patient as
having a sexual implication beyond what is professionally and clinically appropriate. In
particular, all female patients will be prepared for physical examination by undressing in
privacy or with assistance of the nursing A breach of this agreement could

result in his termination from CREM (Dept?s Ex. 11A).

EMELQIEEJ.
144. Employee began working as a registered nurse in the ?at
Albany Memorial Hospital ?and continued working there .i
(Employee J, T. 1734-1735. 1745).

 

145. Respondent was Assistant Director of the Emergency Department (Employee J, T.

1735-1736).

George lnnes. MD. 2 8

 

 

146. Employee had suffered whiplash as a result of an automobile accident and
frequently rubbed her neck to relieve headaches and muscle spasms. Respondent
offered to give Employee a neck message after he observed her rubbing her neck and
she complained of headaches (Employee J, T. 1736-1737).

147. Respondent brought Employee to a room in the Urgent Care Department which
was linked to the Emergency Department, and asked Patient to put on a gown which
she did (Employee J, T. 1737).

148. Employee was wearing only her underpants beneath the gown (Employee J, T.
1738).

149. Respondent closed the door and began to massage Employee J?s neck with heated
lotion while she was lying on her stomach (Employee J, T. 1739-1740).

150. Respondent asked Employee to turn over on her back and proceeded to pull her
gown down just above her breasts and started massaging all over her body and
brushed against her breasts? and crotch area (Employee J, T. 1740-1741).

151. During the summer of 1993, Respondent held a pool party at his house for the
staff which Employee attended (Employee J, T. 1745-1746).

152. While Employee and Respondent were in his pool, Respondent put his hand inside

Employee J's bathing suit on her crotch. Employee pulled away (Employee J, T.

1747-1748).

153. Employee had to use the bathroom. Respondent offered to bring her upstairs to

the bathroom at which time he attempted to kiss Employee and put his hand on her

buttocks (Employee J, T.1748).

154. Employee pulled away and said, ?Your wife is here. What are you doing??

(Employee J, T. 1749).

 

PGeorge lnnee, MD. 29

 

155. Sexual advances by a physician in a position of authority toward a subordinate may
constitute conduct in the practice of medicine evidencing moral unfitness to practice

medicine even outside the hospital setting (Braen, T. 3004-3009).


156. Employee was employed at Albany Memorial Hospital"
of the Emergency Department, from approximately
(Employee K, T. 102).

157. Employee reported directly to Respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the
Emergency Department, and to Dr. Sosnow, who was the Director of the Emergency
Department (Employee K, T. 104).

158. On one occasion, Respondent, in Employee K's presence, and in the presence of
other staff, made a comment about ?running a bordello' and that ?Employee can be
the main whore.? (Employee K, T. 108, 133).

159. Employee perceived the remark as an attempt at humor rather than as a
proposition, but she did not find the remark funny. The remark was made in a group
context where everyone was laughing and joking (Employee K, T. 108, 135).

160. Respondent, on another occasion, was walking by Employee and said to her ?Oh,
Employee K, let?s just get it over and have our affair.? (Employee K, T. 107).

161. On another occasion, Respondent and Employee were working a shift in the

Emergency Department and Respondent commented that ?Employee wouldn?t know

what a big penis is because she's married to an Oriental.? Employee was infuriated

but understood that Respondent was ?joking around? (Employee K, T. 109-110).

 

George lnnec, MD. 3 0

 

 

162. On another occasion, Respondent and Employee were sitting on chairs in the
Emergency Department when Respondent leaned back and put his feet on Employee
K's lap (Employee 111-112).

163. The instances cited above were not part of an ongoing pattern of conduct by
Respondent toward Employee (Employee K, T. 113,156).



164. Nurse has worked in the Emergency Department at Albany Memorial Hospital
In the Nurse was a -in the Emergency
Department (Employee 194-196).

165. Respondent testi?ed that he had a consensual sexual relationship with Nurse 
during his tenure at Albany Memorial (lnnes. T. 4297).

166. The end of Respondent?s relationship with Nurse resulted in a lawsuit against 
Respondent and Memorial Hospital. The Emergency Department was divided into two
camps, those for Nurse and those for Respondent (Nurse 235-236; lnnes. T.
4297-4298).

167. Nurses and worked together and maintained a close personal. social
relationship both inside and outside of the hospital4(Eckstein, T. 191; Nurse M. T. 196-

198.219).
168. In 1995, Nurse complained to Nurse that Respondent had sexually harassed

and sexually abused her. Nurse put this nurse into triage so that she could avoid
Respondent (Nurse M, T. 196-198).

169. Nurse disclosed Nurse L?s complaint to the Clinical Coordinator, Ms. Eckstein.
who then reported the allegations against Respondent to the Nurse Director (Nurse M,

T. 198-199; Eckstein, T. 181 -1 85).

George lnnes. MD. 3 1

 

170. A few weeks after Nurse reported the allegations to hospital administration,
Respondent approached Nurse while she was alone in the dirty utility room and
stood between Nurse and the room?s door which was closed. However, Respondent
did not block her from leaving the room (Nurse M. T. 201-203; lnnes, T. 4302-4303).

171. Respondent and Nurse discussed that both he and Nurse were married.
Respondent said that he was aware Nurse knew his family, and that Nurse was
hurting Respondent's wife and children by speaking of the allegations against him.
Nurse replied that she was not hurting Respondent's family but that his actions could
harm his family, and that the complaining nurse had a family. too (Nurse M. T. 203-204).

172. When Respondent stated that he could not count on Nurse M, Nurse said that
Respondent could count on her for one thing, and that was to tell the truth (Nurse M, T.
204).

173. Respondent, then. told. Nurse that he knew many .things about her including her
whereabouts and routines, when she came to work and when she left, and the days that
Nurse was working. Respondent, also, told Nurse that he knew that her daughter
was home alone when Nurse was not at home (Nurse M, T. 205. 222-223).

174. Nurse reported her encounter with Respondent in the dirty utility room to the
Nurse Director and to the Clinical Coordinator. She speci?cally reported to the Clinical
Coordinator that Respondent had threatened the safety of her daughter if Nurse were
to continue to talk about the allegations (Nurse M. T. 207-208; Eckstein. T. 187).

175. Prior to this incident, Respondent had done a number of kindnesses for Nurse M's

daughter. (Nurse M. T. 206).

176. Nurse believed Respondent was a ?pretty good? doctor (Nurse M, T. 215).

George Innes. MD. 3 2

 

 

177. Although Nurse claims that she felt threatened for her daughter based on the
incident in the dirty utility room, she never reported the incident to the police or to the
hospital. Respondent never came by her house, and she never initiated any type of
legal proceedings to obtain a restraining order against him (Nurse M, T. 232).

5935.3!

178. Nurse has been employed as a registered nurse at St. Peter?s Hospital in Albany,
New York when she began working in the Emergency Department
at St. Peter?s, Nurse was approximately 25 years old (Nurse N, T. 290-291).

179. On one occasion, Respondent told Nurse that he needed to discuss a patient with
her and brought her into an of?ce. Nurse was fearful that she had made a patient
care error. Respondent closed the door, grabbed her, kissed her full on the mouth
without her consent and stuck his tongue in her mouth. Nurse was taken completely
by surprise and left the room (T. 292?295).

180. Nurse was greatly upset by this incidentand felt that Respondent brought her
alone into an of?ce under false pretenses. She reported this incident to Dr. Wales, the
Director of the Emergency Department who laughed and said ?Oh, that's just George."
After receiving this reaction from Dr. Wales. Nurse did not pursue reporting the
incident (T. 294).



181. Nurse 0. an RN. worked in 

wt at St. Peter?s Hospital, and then was employed full time in the Emergency

Department? Respondent was a staff physician and Nurse 0

took orders from him (Nurse 0, T. 1647-1650).

 

George lanes. MD. 3 3

 

182. After hearing Nurse 0 complain of back pain. Respondent told Nurse 0 that he had
a special treatment for back pain and that Nurse 0 should go into a treatment room. He
said that he would heat Keri lotion in the microwave and then come into the treatment
room. Nurse 0 went into the treatment room, removed her bra, put on a gown and lay
down on her stomach (Nurse 0, T. 1650-1653).

183. Nurse 0 was unconcerned about going into the examination room with Respondent
because it was a sub acute?area with glass doors. and there were patients and a nurse
outside (Nurse 0, T. 1656).

184. Respondent entered the room, closed the door and curtain, and was alone with
Nurse 0. He applied some warm Keri Lotion to Nurse 0?s upper back and worked on
the muscles there. He, then, told Nurse 0 to turn over on her back, so that he could
work on the muscles on the top part of her back, in the front (Nurse 0, T. 1653-1655).

185. After Nurse 0 turned over, Respondent began massaging Nurse 0?s breasts very
hard, in a wild groping manner. Nurse 0 was shocked and told Respondent to ?Stop
that right now. I am not going to do this.? (Nurse 0, T. 1654, 1657-1658, 1690).

186. Shortly after these events, Nurse 0 informed a physician named Sherry Praska
about the incident with Respondent (Nurse 0, T. 1659, 1679).

187. When Respondent left St. Peter?s Hospital to take a position at Albany Memorial
Hospital in 1990, Nurse 0 received a telephone call from one of the administrative
nurses at St. Petefs Hospital who asked Nurse 0 if Respondent had molested her.
Nurse 0 told the administrative nurse that Respondent had molested her and described
what Respondent had done to her (Nurse 1661-1662, 1681-1682).

188. Nurse 0 occasionally worked at When Respondent began his
employment there, monumes asked Nurse 0 what Respondent was

George Inna. MD. 3 4

 

 

like, and she replied ?Just don't let him examine you.? Nurse 0 was subsequently
informed by her agency that she could no longer work at .Nurse 0, T.
1666)

189. Prior to the incident with Respondent, Nurse 0 noticed Employee limping and
recommended to her that she obtain a Keri lotion treatment from Respondent for her
sciatica pain as Respondent had ?helped a lot of people with sciatica? (Nurse 0. T.

1671; Employee P, T. 33-35).


190. Employee received her registered nurse?s 'degree in She began

working at St. Peter's Hana?- at the age of
twenty-two (Employee P, T. 31-32).

191. Respondent was working at St. Peter's Hospital as an ER physician in 1988 when
Employee was an ?(Employee 32).

192. Employee had a problem with sciatica which caused her to have pain down the
right side of her body. including pain in her posterior hip, down the back of her leg and
into the knee (Employee P, T. 33).

193. After her conversation with Nurse 0, Employee spoke to Respondent about her
sciatica. He told her? that he would help her and directed her to an examination room.
The room had three solid walls and a curtain, and was off to the side of the Emergency
Department. Employee went into the room, put on a patient gown and left on her bra,

her underpants and her socks. and lay down on her stomach (Employee P, T. 34-36).

George lnnes, MD. 3 5

 

 

 

194. Respondent entered the room with lotion that he had warmed in the microwave and
began rubbing the lotion on the back of Employee P?s leg and on her hip, in areas
where she had pain (Employee P, T. 37).

195. Respondent then told Employee to turn over onto her back and when she did so,
he removed her underpants (Employee P, T. 37).

196. Respondent put Employee P?s foot on his shoulder, moved his hands from the
outside of Employee P?s leg where her pain was located and began to move his hands
up the inner side of her thigh all the way up to her groin and very close to her pubic area
(Employee P, T. 38).

197. When Employee said ?The pain is on the outside of my leg?, Respondent just said
Employee said again ?The pain is on the outside? and jerked her leg away
from Respondent and concluded the examination (T. 38-39).

198. Respondent then went to the sink and began washing his hands and stated, ?You
know what your problem need to get fucked more?, and walked out (Employee
P, T. 39).

199. After this incident, Employee continued to work as from 4 PM.
to midnight. During the last hour of her shift, from 11 PM. to midnight, she was the only
a on duty until the midnight shift arrived. During the hour that
Employee was alone, Respondent would bring his own patients over ?from the
Emergency Department to be c? _which was not the usual practice of the
Emergency Department physicians (Employee 41).

200. On a number of occasions when Employee PM

Respondent would come into the  and stand between -

 

 

Employee and the door. He would not let her past him and would ask her for a kiss.

George MD. 3 6

 

 

Employee would say Respondent would block her path and would get up very
close to her face, and tell her that he would let her pass if she would kiss him.
Employee would continue to refuse. and eventually would get past Respondent and
out of the? (Employee P, T. 41-42).

201. Employee eventually changed her hours avoid these
situations with Respondent (Employee P, T. 43-44).

202. Employee eventually told her sister,?
about what Respondent had done to her in the treatment room (P.P., T. 90-93).

203. In approximately after Employee had become a registered
nurse and was working at St. Peter's. she saw Nurse 0 for the ?rst time in many years
and said sarca'stically, ?Oh by the way, thanks a lot for your referral? in reference to
seeking Respondent?s help for her sciatica. Employee told Nurse 0 what Respondent
had done to her and Nurse 0 became very upset and apologized for sending Employee
to Respondent (Employee P. T. 48-50).

EAQIHALALLEQAIJQNQ

204. In August 1999, Respondent?s attorney employed Richard B. Krueger, M.D., to

evaluate Respondent for the purpose of doing a evaluation and preparing a

report which would be furnished to Respondent's attorney. Dr. Krueger advised

Respondent that the report could be fonNarded to 0PMC and Respondent agreed to

this (lnnes, T. 4473-4474. 4510-4511; Pet. Ex. 8).

205. Dr. Krueger sent his report, dated September 1. 1999, to Respondent's attorney,

who sent it to 0PMC on October 11, 1999 (Pet. Ex. 8; Stipulation by Respondent).

206. Respondent represented to Dr. Krueger that he had had no sexual complaints

against him prior to the complaint by Patient F. Dr. Krueger wrote in his report. ?Of

George lnnes. MD. 3 7

 

 

great note is that the patient has had no prior sexual complaints other than before (sic)
the complaint of a young woman in the summer of 1998', and that ?Dr. lnnes
consistently denied any sexual motivation or abuse of staff or patients.? (Dept's Ex. 8.
pg. 12-13).

207. Dr. Krueger recommendations placed importance on and were based in part upon
Respondent's representation that other than the incidents in Watertown, he had no
complaints against him of sexual harassment (Dept's Ex. 8, pg. 13-14).

208. The ?Memorandum of Agreement" concerning Employee which Respondent
entered into in 1991 included the following language: ?In the event further allegations of
sexual harassment or sexual impropriety arise, these allegations will be reviewed by the
President of Capital Region Emergency Medicine, the President of Albany Memorial
Hospital. and the Vice President of Human Resources of Albany Memorial Hospital. If
in the opinion of these?persons the allegations are found to be of merit, Dr. lnnes will
agree to submit his resignation to Capital Region Emergency Medicine." (Dept?s Ex.
11A).

209. At a July 23, 1991 meeting with administration at Albany Memorial Hospital
concerning the Employee allegations. Respondent proposed that if administration
believed his intent toward Patient I was not sexual, he would remain at the hospital.
Othenivise, he would leave (Dept's Ex. 24).

210. A July 25, 1991 Albany Memorial Hospital Memorandum of Record described the

Patient 1 incident as involving the removal of clothing by Respondent which caused

?embarrassment and great concern". The memorandum stated that the incident did not

involve improper contact or touching of her breasts (Dept?s Ex. 11).

George lnnes. MD. 3 8

 

 

217. Respondent?s employment contract with Finger Lakes could be terminated without
cause by either party (Dept?s Ex. 12, hand numbered pgs. 15, 29).

218. Respondent?s resignation was at his own option pursuant to his employment
contract, was not for cause and was unrelated to patient care issues (Hanks, T. 1458-
1462)

219. There was no formal complaint ?led with the Chief Medical Of?cer or the Credentials
Committee of Finger Lakes Health regarding inappropriate behavior by Respondent in
the clinical setting (Hanks, T. 1439).

220. In the year 2000, Respondent was employed by the Division of Rural Emergency
Medicine and through that group, worked at the Via Health hospitals at
Newark Wayne and Myers (Stroman, T. 1489-1491).

221. Via Health lacked the capacity to terminate Respondent?s employment because he
was employed by DCREM and not Via Health (Stroman, T. 1490-1491).

222. In August of 2001, following the Patient A incident, Via Health, pursuant to its
contract with DCREM, requested that DCREM cease scheduling Respondent for work
at Via Health's hospitals which request was carried out (Stroman, T. 1498-1499).

223. Respondent ?led a statement as part of his Sidney application detailing that he was
investigated by 0PMC in connection with various allegations (Dept?s Ex. 13, 16,
30). 

224. Respondent submitted an Application for Appointment to the Medical Staff, dated

April 22, 2002, to Canton-Potsdam Hospital (?Canton?) in which he was asked a

question with regard to his prior hospital medical staff membership which read 

your membership, association, employment or practice ever been limited, suspended,

revoked, not renewed, granted with stated limitations or voluntarily suspended?"

George innes, MD. 4 0

 

 

 

Respondent checked ?No? in response to the question (Dept's Ex. 14, hand numbered
pgs. 7, 8).

225. As part of the Canton application, Respondent submitted a statement

concerning the OPMC investigations which stated, . .my record is currently spotless.

There are no restrictions or censures recorded." (Dept's Ex. 14, hand numbered pg. 9, ?rst

paragraph).

226. On the Canton application, Respondent, also, checked ?No? in response to the
question, ?Have you ever been refused membership on a hospital, medical or dental
staff. association, employment, or practice at another facility, or has your membership,
association, employment or practice ever been limited, suspended, revoked, not
renewed. granted with stated limitations or voluntarily surrendered?? (Dept?s Ex. 14.
hand numbered pg. 7, third question from top).

227. Respondent checked ?No? in response to another question on the Canton
application. ?Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, denied,
diminished, revoked, not renewed, or voluntan'ly surrendered7'. (Dept's Ex. 14, hand
numbered pg. 7, fourth paragraph).

228. No actions were taken against Respondent?s hospital privileges at Via Health
(Stroman, T. 1511; lnnes, T. 4211-4214).



229. Respondent began working at the Hospital at Sidney in June 2003, initially as the
Chief Medical Of?cer and eventually as the CEO (Innes,T. 4745-4746).

230. Respondent was a guest speaker at a banquet for the Unadilla EMS squad, on May

1, 2004 (Employee Q. T. 3198-3199).

George lnnes, MD. 4 1

 

231. Following the banquet, Employees and and Jenna Ponnwitz and Pamela
McClenon, EMTs with the Sidney Fire Department. went to the Community Lounge. a
local bar. Respondent arrived about an hour later (Employee Q, T. 3200; McLenon. T.
3665-3666; Ponwitz, T3688).

232. Upon arriving at the bar, Respondent joined Ms. McClenon, her husband and Ms
Ponnwitz (McLenon, T. 3665-3666).

233. Everyone was buying drinks that evening including Respondent (McLenon, T. 3677;
Employee 0, T. 3201 

234. Employee 0, Ms. McClenon and Ms. Ponnwitz heard Employee complain to
Respondent about her job (Employee Q, T. 3241; Ponwitz. T. 3688-3689; McLenon, T.
3667; lnnes, T. 4752).

235. At one point, Ms. McLenon observed Employee make a remark to Respondent
which caused considerable consternation at the bar (McLenon, T. 3668-3670).

236. Recognizing that Employee had been drinking. Respondent promised that he
would let her know if he heard about any jobs. He stepped outside with Ms. McLenon
and Ms. Ponnwitz to get away from Employee (lnnes, T. 4750-4753).

237. Several days later, Respondent called Employee into his office and stated that it
might be possible for her to work with her friends, Employee 0 and Shannon. in the next
few months. During this conversation, the door to Respondent?s of?ce was open
(Employee R. T. 3036-3038). -

238. Respondent discussed employment opportunities with both Employees and R.

The Department was being reorganized. the hospital was using an expensive consultant

temporarily and was looking for a permanent person. and Respondent felt that

Employee had the right abilities and qualities to take over. She was familiar with

George lnnes. MD. 4 2

 

 

troubleshooting, software and hardware and understood how the network functioned
(Employee 0, T. 3236; lnnes, T. 4754-4755).

239. Regarding Employee R, Respondent felt she had good computer skills and was
hopeful the position could be filled before the current employee left for purposes of
training. He sent Employee an E-mail on June 24 with the subject ?stop by my office?
and which stated want to talk to you about a job." The Email discussed only the
employment opportunity and did not suggest any quid pro quo (lnnes, T. 4755-4756;
Dept?s Ex. 31).

240. On July 29, 2004, Employees and filed Sexual Harrassment and Anti-
Discrimination Complaint Forms with the hospital. after speaking to'each other. They
listed each other as witnesses to the offensive conduct (Dept's Ex. 33 and 34;
Employee R, T. 3054; Employee 0, T. 3223). 

241. The complaints occurred after Employee 0 learned that people were saying that
she and Respondent had been out together (Ex. 34; T. 3271 -3273).

242. Employee 0 did not leave her position at the hospital until after Respondent was
terminated (Employee 0, T. 3195-3196. 3228).


243. Employee began her employment at The Hospital at Sidney .4

- and eventually accepted a management position in the -
In her management position, she had daily interaction with administration,

including Respondent who was theCEO (Employee S, T. 3090-93092).
244. On one occasion, Employee was in a hospital meeting talking about a CT
machine, and Respondent said to those present "We'll get you vibrating heated chairs

and then you?ll never want to leave.? Employee 8 was the only female present in the

 

 

George lnnes. MD. 4 3

meeting. Senior team members, members of the staff, and outside salespeople were
present (Employee 8, T. 3098-3100; lnnes, T. 4822).

245. On another occasion, in either December 2003 or January 2004, when Employee 8
was sitting at the conference table in Respondent's office, Respondent said to
Employee S, ?If you were the type of woman that dated married men, you would be the
first on my list.? Employee replied ?Well, we both know I?m not that type of person.?
(Employee S, T. 3101-3102).

246. On the same occasion, when Employee mentioned that she was planning a trip to
Florida, Respondent said, ?Make sure you bring me back pictures of you in your bikini.?
(Employee S, T. 3102-3102).

247. In the winter of 2004, after Employee became sick with a respiratory infection,
Respondent gave her samples of an antibiotic, Levaquin, because she had a significant
infection. Respondent, at that time, examined Employee in the Emergency
Department, in the usual patient treatment area and listened to her chest. He did not
unhook or remove her'bra, and he did not expose her breasts in any way (Employee 3,
T. 3105-3107).

248. On a later occasion when Employee 8 was still coughing and feeling ill, Respondent

said to Employee 8, ?Maybe I should listen to your chest; maybe you're getting sicker.? 

(Employee S, T. 3107-3108).

249. Respondent examined Employee 3 in his office. After Respondent had listened to

Employee 3' chest from the back, he suddenly and without warning unhooked

Employee 8? bra and pulled up her bra and shirt, exposing her breasts, and listened to

her chest. Employee 8' breasts were completely exposed (Employee 3, T. 3108-

3111).

George lnnes, MD. 44

 

 

 

7 250. Employee 8 ultimately told Christine Porter, her Senior Administrative
Representative and the Director of Patient Care Services, about Respondent?s
exposure of her breasts. Employee 3, then, ?led a formal complaint with the hospital
administration (Employee 8, T. 3121-3123).

251. in May 2004, Respondent apologized to Employee 8 in Respondent?s office in the
presence of Ms. Porter (Employee 3124).

252. During the apology, Respondent acknowledged that he unhooked Employee S's
bra, and he apologized for making Employee 8 feel uncomfortable (Employee 8, T.
3125-3126).



253. Respondent. pursuant to a contract he entered into with the Committee for
Physicians? Health (CPH), has been in treatment with Linda Land. a CSW, since
October 2001 (Land, T. 3518-3519; Resp. Ex. Z).

254. If CPH is made aware that a physician is out of compliance with his CPH contract,
CPH is required to report the noncompliance to OPMC (Land. T. 3519-3521).

255. Respondent, on or about April 23. 2002, signed an Addendum to Conditions for
Participation in the Committee for Physicians' Health which set forth the behavioral
expectations that Respondent must meet to remain in compliance with his CPH contract
(Land, T. 3547-3549; Resp. Ex. 2).

256. Among other things. Respondent agreed that he would treat all patients and staff

with dignity regardless of the circumstances. refrain from sexual innuendos and sexual

harassment, and avoid actions of intimidation or seduction including sexual advances.

for any reason (Resp. Ex. Land, T. 3548-3550).

 

George lnnes. MD. 4 5

 

257. Respondent did not report the allegations at the Hospital at Sidney to Ms. Land

(Land, T. 3636).


258. On August 7, 2004, Respondent sent an e-mail to Terry Watkins. Chairman of the
Board of the Hospital at Sidney. with a copy to Kevin Haughney, CFO and Acting CEO.
in which he requested that none of the recent events be reported to the Committee on
Physician's Health or OPMC ?or my license is gone." (Dept's Ex. 32; Innes, T. 4839-
4842).

259. Respondent had already been terminated from the hospital at the time he sent the

August 7, 2004 e-mail (Innes, T. 4762).



Respondent is charged with ?fty ?ve speci?cations alleging professional misconduct
within the meaning of Education Law ?6530. This statute sets forth numerous forms of
conduct that constitute professional misconduct, but does not provide de?nitions of the
various types of misconduct. During the course of its deliberations on these charges. the
Committee consulted a memorandum prepared by the former General Counsel for the
Department of Health. The memorandum. which is entitled ?De?nitions of Professional
Misconduct Under the New York State Education Law sets forth suggested de?nitions for
negligence and fraudulent practice.
The following de?nitions, taken from this memorandum, were utilized by the
Committee:
Negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent
physician would exercise under the circumstances. 

Professional Medical Conduct, 195 86, 88, 606 N.Y.S. 2d 381 (3d Dept. 1993). It

George Innes. MD. 4 6

 

 

 

involves a deviation from acceptable medical standards in the treatment of patients. Injury.
damages and proximate cause are not essential elements in a medical disciplinary
proceeding. 

Prac icin th Prof i Fr ul involves the intentional
misrepresentation or concealment of a known fact, in some connection with the practice of
medicine and made with the intent to deceive. An individual's knowledge that he or she is
making a misrepresentation or concealing a known fact with the intention to mislead may
property be inferred from certain facts. Fraud is also a statement or representation made
with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement or representation.

The attorneys and the Committee were instructed by the the Administrative Law
Judge that in order for the Committee to sustain an allegation of moral the
Department must show that Respondent committed acts which ?evidence moral 
There is a distinction between a ?nding that an act ?evidences moral un?tness" and a
?nding that a particular person is, in fact, morally un?t. In a proceeding before the State
Board for Professional Medical Conduct, the Committee is asked to decide if certain 
conduct is suggestive of. or would tend to prove. moral un?tness. The Committee is not
called on to make an overall judgment regarding Respondent?s character. It is noteworthy
that an othenrvise moral individual can commit an act ?evidencing moral un?tness? due to a
lapse in judgment or a temporary aberration. -

The standard for moral un?tness in the practice of medicine is twofold. First, there
may be a ?nding that the accused has violated the public trust which is bestowed by virtue
of the Respondent?s licensure as a physician. Physicians have privileges which are are
available solely due to the fact that they are physicians. The public places great trust in

physicians solely based on the fact they are physicians. For instance. physicians have

George lnnes. MD. 4 '7

 

 

access to controlled substances and have billing privileges that are available to them solely
because they are physicians. Patients are asked to put themselves in potentially
compromising positions with physicians, such as when they disrobe for examination or
treatment. Hence, it is expected that a physician will not violate the trust the public has
bestowed upon the physician by virtue of the physician?s professional status. Second,
moral unfitness can be seen as a violation of the moral standards of the medical community
which the hearing committee as delegated members of that community, represent (see
paragraphs #18 and 19 at pages 11-12 of the Hearing Committee?s Decision and Order in
Matter 91 Steven 51, ngig, MD, affirmed by the Appellate Division at 284 AD. 2d 591, 726
N.Y.S. 2d 488 (3d Dept, 2001).


The Administrative Law Judge provided an instruction to the Committee with regard
to its considerations of whether or not a witness was credible. Specifically, the Committee
was instructed that if it found that a witness had lied about one area of testimony, then an
inference might be drawn that the witness? overall testimony was not credible. I

With regard to Respondent?s testimony, one Committee member did not find him to
be a credible witness. However, the Committee as a whole declined to draw any overall?
inference regarding Respondent's testimony, finding that in certain instances, his testimony
was credible and in others not. a I I

Respondent?s testimony was viewed by the Committee as clever in the sense that
Respondent put the ?best spin? on events and was not forthcoming. Respondent?s failure
to provide complete information to CPH and to Dr. Land were viewed as examples of
Respondent?s lack of credibility. it was noted, for example, that Respondent failed to

disclose the events at the Hospital at Sidney to CPH. When Respondent was evaluated by

George Inna, MD. 4 3

 

 

Dr. Krueger. he failed to disclose the sexual harassment suit against him (Dept's Ex. 23)
and his Memorandum of Agreement concerning Patient (Dept?s Ex. 11A).
The Committee viewed Respondent as a generally reliable purveyor of medical

information but as someone who did not understand the limits and boundaries of

 

acceptable behavior. Overall, the Committee, believed that Respondent viewed his own
testimony as truthful but that his view of reality was skewed by his inability to appropriately
assess boundaries.

Respondent served as his own expert witness. The Department presented G.
Richard Braen, M.D., as its expert. Dr. Braen was viewed as credible and knowledgable.
However, the Committee did not always agree with his his opinions as to the appropriate
standard of practice in certain situations.

Both the Department and Respondent presented numerous fact witnesses whose
credibility will be discussed when necessary below.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
PATIENT A

Factual Allegation A.1 charged that Respondent told the nurse that he wanted to
speak to Patient A alone. and asked the nurse to leave. The Committee heard voluminous
testimony with regard to this allegation. Ultimately, the testimony of Valerie Grossman that
Nurse Waldeck told her that Respondent intended to interview Patient A alone was viewed
as being more credible than that of Nurse Waldeck whom the Committee believed changed
her statement. Ms. Grossman's testimony was also consistent with that of Patient A and

Patient A?s mother who testi?ed that Respondent asked to speak to Patient A alone. The

Committee did not believe Nurse Waldeck?s testimony that she was present when

George innes. MD. 4 9

 

 

Respondent examined Patient A (T. 3396-3397). The Committee, also, viewed Patient A?s
testimony as more credible than that of Respondent.

Although the Committee sustains as being factually true, the allegation is not
sustained as evidencing moral unfitness in the practice of medicine. There was no hospital
policy requiring a chaperone to be present when Respondent attended to a patient.
Standing alone, this allegation does not constitute an act evidencing moral unfitness and is
not sustained as the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient or as negligence.

Factual Allegation A.2 alleged that Respondent said to Patient A, ?It's time to go
under the covers?, or words to that effect, and that he lifted her gown over her head in such
a manner that the gown was covering her face and exposing her breasts. Because Patient
A was more credible than Respondent, the Committee concludes Respondent did make the
comment ?It?s time to go under the covers? and that he, then, lifted Patient A's gown, and
exposed her breasts. It was viewed as unlikely that Patient A would fabricate that
Respondent stated ?it?s time to go under the covers? when he lifted Patient A's gown.

The Committee, however, does not accept that the gown was lifted in such a manner
that it was covering Patient A?s face. Factual Allegation A2 is, therefore, sustained only to
the extent that Respondent said ?It?s time to go under the covers? and lifted Patient A's
examination gown, exposing her breasts. In the context of lifting Patient A?s gown and
exposing her breasts, the comment ?It's time to go under the covers? was viewed as being
inappropriate for a physician to make. The Committee concludes that the comment
attributed to Respondent combined with the lifting of Patient A's gown and the exposure of
her breasts constitutes an act evidencing moral unfitness in the practice of medicine.

With regard to Factual Allegation A.3, the Committee as a whole accepts that

Respondent then touched Patient A?s breasts as charged in the allegation. However. with

George lnnes. MD. 5 

 

 

respect to that part of the allegation which charged that Respondent cupped each of
Patient A's breasts, the Committee noted discrepancies in the testimony of Patient A and
her mother. Patient A's mother testi?ed that Patient A told her that Respondent cupped
each breast with two hands, one at a time (T. 1857), while Patient A testi?ed that
Respondent cupped one hand on each breast at the same time (T. 1799-1800).
Consequently, the Committee declines to ?nd that Respondent cupped Patient A's breasts.

The Committee, therefore, sustains A3 to the extent that Respondent's touched
Patient A's breasts. The Committee, also. sustains that part of which alleges that the
touching was not part of the medical workup, was not medically indicated and had no
legitimate medical purpose. When the Committee considered the touching in conjunction
with the exposure of Patient A?s breasts. the fact that she was being seen alone and that
her medical record documented that she was being seen for an overdose of Celebrex. the
Committee concluded that the touching was unwarranted and inappropriate. Furthermore,
the Committee does not accept that the touching was done pursuant to an examination with
a stethoscope.

The Committee concludes that the touching was inappropriate and violated the trust
which the public bestows upon a physician. Factual Alleg'ation A.3, therefore, is sustained
as constituting an act evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine but did not ?nd
a preponderance of evidence that Respondent had engaged in the willful harassment,
abuse or intimidation of a patient.

The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegations A2 and A3 as negligence.
While the Committee concluded that and constituted moral un?tness in the
practice of medicine, and that the touching of Patient A?s breasts had no medical purpose

and was inappropriate, the Committee believes that contrary to any testimony from Dr.

 

George lnnes. MD. 5 1

 

Braen, negligence is not an appropriate speci?cation to categorize Respondent's conduct in
this instance.

Factual Allegations A.4 and A.5 allege that Respondent inappropriately questioned
Patient A regarding her sexual history. The Committee sustains and as being,
factually true based upon Patient A's testimony that Respondent questioned her concerning
oral and anal sex. The Committee, also, concludes, on the basis of Dr. Braen's testimony.
that such questions are not outside the standard of care. Factual Allegations A.4 and A.5
are, therefore, not sustained as conduct evidencing moral un?tness, as the willful
harassment. abuse or intimidation of a patient or as negligence. Dr. Braen testi?ed that
Emergency Department physicians would probably ask questions concerning oral and anal
sex when confronted by a minor patient with suicidal ideation. Factual Allegation A.7
alleged that Respondent?s questioning was outside the standard of care, that the questions
were medically inappropriate or that they had no legitimate medical purpose. Based on Dr.
Braen?s testimony. is, also, not sustained.

Factual Allegations A.6. A.6.a and A.6.b charged that Respondent did not document
the breast examination or his questioning 'of Patient A. and are
sustained as true based on the lack of documentation in Patient A's medical record
concerning these matters. The Committee was instructed that in order for an omission in
record keeping to constitute negligence, there must be at least some potential impact on
the care of the patient which could result from the lack of documentation. The Committee,
by a 2 to 1 vote. sustains Factual Allegation A.6.a and A.6.b as negligence based on the
potential importance of conveying the information gleaned from the breast examination and
questioning, to others who might need to rely upon the medical record (see Braen,T.2940-

2941 re importance of documenting questioning).

 

George Innes. MD. 5 2

 



The Committee sustains as factually true Factual Allegation 8.1 which charges that
Respondent examined Patient while she was wearing her street clothes. Nonetheless.
the Committee does not find Respondent to be negligent in this regard. The Committee
does not accept Dr. Braen?s testimony that Patient needed to be gowned for the
examination (T. 2903-2909) and instead, accepts Respondent?s explanation that Patient 
did not need to be gowned (T. 4722-4723).

Factual Allegation B.2 alleges that Respondent tried to unfasten Patient b?s bra and
said that used to be good at this?. The Committee sustains Factual Allegation 3.2 as
factually true based on the testimony of Patient and her mother. Respondent
acknowledged unhooking Patient B?s bra and asserted that this was done to assist Patient
3 in disrobing due to the fact that Patient The
Committee accepts that Respondent was attempting to assist Patient by unhooking her
bra.

Respondent denied saying used to be good at this.? (T. 4703). The Committee
found Patient B?s testimony and her mother?s testimony more credible on this point than
Respondent's denial. Nevertheless, the Committee did not view the statement as rising to
the level of conduct evidencing moral unfitness in the practice of medicine or as rising to
harassment, abuse or intimidation. The Committee finds no basis in the record for viewing
this conduct as negligent. 

Factual Allegation B.3 charges that Respondent cupped or lifted Patient B?s breasts
and then dropped or released them. The Committee accepts that Respondent lifted Patient
B's breasts in the course of looking for bmises. Notwithstanding any testimony to the

contrary by the Department?s expert, the Committee does not find Respondent?s

 

George lnnee. MD. 5 3

 

 

actions inappropriate, that they evidenced moral un?tness to practice medicine, that he
willfully harassed, abused or intimidated Patient or that he was negligent.

With regard to Factual Allegation 8.4, the Committee concludes that Respondent did
ask Patient to drop her skirt and that after she did so, he pushed her thighs apart.
However, given the circumstances of this Factual Allegation, the Committee does not ?nd
Respondent?s conduct unreasonable in that he was looking for bruises. The Committee
does not ?nd that Factual Allegation B.4 constitutes moral un?tness in the practice of
medicine, the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient or negligence.

The Committee sustains allegations 3.5, 8.6 and 3.7 which alleged that Respondent
made remarks about Patient B's mode of dress and sexual activity, as being factually true.
Respondent, himself, acknowledged that he discussed Patient B?s mode of dress (lnnes, T.
4705-4707). Whatever exact words were used, the Committee does not ?nd that
Respondent?s actions in this regard rose to the level of conduct evidencing moral un?tness
or the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient or negligence. The
Department's expert, Dr. Braen, testi?ed that it was inappropriate for Respondent to
comment negatively on Patient B?s sexual activity or mode of dress. Nevertheless, the
Committee concludes that, however salient Dr. Braen's comments might be in different
circumstances, his testimony is inapplicable to a situation as here, where a sexually active
15 year old female who was sent for assessment by Child Protective Services, presented to
the emergency room in the company of her mother to be assessed for bruising. Given
Patient B?s clothing, the Committee believed Respondent's comments were not

inappropriate under the circumstances.

George lnnes. MD. 54

 



 

 

Factual Allegation 8.8 which alleged that Respondent's questions/statements were

inappropriate or failed to meet the standard of care, is notsustained on a similar basis.
LATHE

Factual Allegation C.1 charges that Respondent told the nurse that he wished to
speak to Patient C, a twelve year old female, alone. The Committee sustains Factual
Allegation 0.1 as factually true in that Respondent did tell Susan Crump that he was going
to speak to Patient alone. The Committee. however. ?nds no basis in the record for
sustaining the specifications charged with regard to Factual Allegation C.1, moral
un?tness to practice medicine, the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient or
negligence. 

Factual Allegation C.2 alleges that Respondent asked Patient questions
concerning her sexual activity. Factual Allegation C.3 charges that the questions were not
within accepted standards of care, were medically inappropriate or without legitimate
medical purpose. The Committee sustains Factual Allegation 0.2 as being factually true in
that Respondent did question Patient with regard to sexual relations, oral sex and the
touching of private parts. The Committee notes its discussion above with respect to Patient
A, and Dr. Braen?s testimony that emergency physicians would probably ask questions
concerning sexual activity, including questions concerning oral and anal sex when
confronted by a minor patient with suicidal ideation. Based on the same reasoning under
which the Committee declined to sustain the speci?cations relating to Factual Allegations
A.4 and A5, the Committee declines to sustain Factual Allegation C.2 as evidencing moral
un?tness to practice medicine, or as the willful harassment. abuse or intimidation of a
patient. Similady, with regard to the negligence speci?cation, the Committee did not ?nd it

inappropriate or outside the standard of care for Respondent to question Patient who

George lnnes. MD. 5 5

 

 



 

 

was potentially suicidal and who had recently split up with her boyfriend, concerning her
possible sexual practices.

in this regard, the Committee concludes that even if Respondent used a ?street
term" such as ?blow job? in questioning Patient C, his questioning would not necessarily
have been inappropriate. While such language may not comport with social niceties, the
Committee believes it was up to Respondent to use whatever language he felt would be
most understandable and which would best elicit the disclosure of medically necessary
information from Patient C. Because the Committee does not conclude that Respondent's
questions were outside the standard of care, it does not sustain Factual Allegation 0.3.

The Committee sustains Factual Allegation 0.4 as factually true in that Respondent
did not record his questioning of Patient or her answers in Patient C's medical record. By
a 2 to 1 vote, the Committee views this omission in record keeping as negligence because
the answers would have been potentially important to subsequent readers of the medical
record (see Braen, T. 2940?2941).



The Committee sustains that part of Factual Allegation D1 which alleged that
Respondent diagnosed that Patient had gonorrhea, based on the testimony of Patient 
and "both of whom testi?ed that Respondent told Patient that he had

gonorrhea.

Additionally. the Committee concludes that the diagnosis was not medically justi?ed.
The Committee found the testimony of Patient and the nurses, Grant and Currier,
credible when they testified that Patient had no discharge from his penis. The Committee
also accepted Respondent?s testimony that although Patient denied having discharge. he

nevertheless told Respondent that he had yellow stains on his underwear. The Committee

 

George lnnas. MD. 5 6

 

 

accepts that Respondent could have concluded that Patient had discharge based upon
this information. When combined with Patient D's other Respondent could
legitimately have made a presumptive diagnosis of gonorrhea.

However, the Committee believed that Respondent diagnosed gonorrhea when at
most he should have made a presumptive diagnosis. Without microbial proof or the
presence of discharge, Respondent should not have de?nitively diagnosed gonorrhea. The
Committee. nevertheless, does not ?nd Respondent negligent with regard to this allegation.
Because the treatment prescribed by Respondent would have been appropriate as a
prophylactic treatment even in the context of a presumptive diagnosis of gonorrhea,lthe
Committee cannot fault Respondent for his diagnosis or treatment of Patient D. Ultimately,
Respondent was hasty in making a de?nitive diagnosis of gonorrhea The diagnosis. with
the bene?t of hindsight, was incorrect but not unreasonable at the time and does not rise to
the level of negligence (see Dr. Braen?s testimony at T. 2876-2879).

The Committee ?nds the testimony of Patient and ?credible with
respect to Factual Allegations 0.2. 0.3 and 0.4. The Committee concludes that
Respondent told Patient that he had gonorrhea in the presence of his friend-
A. as alleged in that Respondent did not inquire of Patient whether he
wanted 1-: to be present when he diagnosed gonorrhea, as alleged in and
that when Patient questioned the diagnosis. Respondent told Patient that perhaps his
girlfriend ?isn't such a good girl", as alleged in 

With regard to i'D.2" and the Committee concludes that Respondent revealed
personally identi?able facts or information concerning Patient D, that Respondent obtained
this information in his professional capacity as a physician and that he released the

information without Patient D's consent. The Committee concludes that Factual Allegations

 

George lnnes. MD. 5 '7

 

 

0.2 and 0.4 do not rise to the level of an act evidencing moral un?tness to practice
medicine. While Respondent?s comment about Patient D?s girlfriend not being a good girl
may have lacked tact and have been hurtful, the Committee does not accept that this
comment rose to the level of moral un?tness.

The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegation D5 which alleged that the
antibiotic therapy prescribed by Respondent was inappropriate or not within the standard of
care. The Committee notes that the Department?s own expert, Dr. Braen. testi?ed that
Respondent?s choice of antibiotics might not have been ?rst line drug selection but was
within the ?spectrum of treatment?- (T. 2876-2877).

With the exception of Fattual Allegation D.7.b which is discussed below, the Factual
Allegations contained in through all charge Respondent with failing to document
information in Patient D's medical record, or with recording inaccurate information in the
reCord. alleges that the history taken by Respondent from Patient was inadequate
or not accurate. alleges that Respondent failed to record his telephone
conversation with Patient D?s girlfriend in Patient D?s medical record. and 
respectively charge that Respondent failed to record an accurate history when he noted
that Patient had a history of the ?clap?, and when he noted that Patient had discharge
from his penis. The Committee sustains Factual Allegations. D.6. D.7.a, 0.8 and 0.9, as
true.

In the case of the Committee ?nds credible the testimony of Patient and
his girlfriend regarding her telephone call to Respondent when Patient became ill.
Respondent never recorded this telephone conversation with Patient D?s girlfriend in

Patient D's medical record, and the Committee sustains D.7.a on that basis.

George Innes. MD. 5 8

 

 

The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegations 0.6 and D.7.a as negligence.

In and of itself. de?cient documentation does not constitute negligence. There must be a
showing that the inaccurate documentation creates a risk that the patient?s care will be
impacted in the future. In the instant case, the Committee did not conclude that
Respondent's failure to document his telephone conversation with Patient D's girlfriend,
concerning Patient D?s vomiting and diarrhea, would or did impact Patient D?s care.
Patient had My taken the tablets which had apparently upset his stomach, and
documenting the incident would have been unlikely to impact future treatment. Similarly,
the inaccurate recording of whether Patient had a history of venereal disease or whether
he had discharge was unlikely to affect his future treatment.

Factual Allegation D.7.a is sustained as a failure by Respondent to maintain a record
which accurately re?ected Respondent?s evaluation and treatment of Patient D. As
previously noted, the Committee accepts that Patient D?s girtfriend called Respondent
concerning his vomiting and nausea. As is evident from Patient D's medical reCord. this
conversation was not recorded.

The Committee sustains as true in that it found credible Patient D?s testimony
that he never told Respondent or anyone else that he had a history of sexually transmitted
disease and ?nds that Respondent recorded in Patient D?s medical record that he had a
history of the ?clap?.

With regard to the Committee accepts Respondent?s testimony that although
Patient did not recount that he had discharge, Respondent, nevertheless, believed there
was discharge because Patient stated he had yellow stains on his underwear. Instead

of recording that Patient had yellow stains on his underwear, Respondent recorded that

George lnnes. MD. 5 9

 

 

Patient had ?yellow penile discharge?. This was not an accurate record of the history
given by Patient D. The Committee, therefore, sustains Factual Allegation D.9 as true.

The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegation 0.8 and D.9 as evidencing
moral un?tness to practice medicine, as the fraudulent practice of medicine or as the willful
?ling of a false report. In the case of Factual Allegation D.8, Respondent's notation that
Patient had a history of ?clap? did not re?ect the actual history which Patient gave to
Respondent. Nevertheless, the committee believes that Respondent had no motive to
fabricate false information on Patient D's medical record and had nothing to gain by doing
so. Respondent was already treating Patient for gonorrhea and the Committee accepts
that he had a presumptive basis for doing so. While the Committee cannot determine on
what basis Respondent recorded that Patient had a history of ?clap?. it does not ?nd that
this notation evidences an intent to deceive or moral un?tness to practice medicine.

With regard to the Committee accepts that Respondent assumed Patient 
had penile discharge when Patient told him that he had yellow stains on his undenNear.
Respondent?s note that Patient had yellow penile discharge evidences inaccurate
reporting. The Committee believes this history was recorded in good faith.

Factual Allegations 0.8 and D.9 are not sustained as a failure by Respondent to
accurately re?ect his evaluation and treatment of Patient because Respondent did, in
good faith, evaluate Patient as having gonorrhea and, then, treated him accordingly.
While his underlying assumptions. that Patient had penile discharge and a history of
clap? were ultimately wrong- Patient D's evaluation and treatment by Respondent were
accurately recorded. 

Factual Allegation D.7.b alleges that after the telephone call from patient D?s

girlfriend, Respondent failed to advise that Patient should either alter his medication

George innes. MD. 5 

 

regimen or be reevaluated in the Emergency Department. This allegation is sustained as
true. However. the Committee does not sustain any speci?cations with regard to this
allegation. The Committee viewed that Respondent could legitimately have chosen to
continue Patient D's treatment regimen based upon the presumptive diagnosis of

gonorrhea.
BELIENIE

Factual Allegation E.1 alleges that Respondent failed to adequately review Patient
E's x-rays and/or failed to diagnose her lumbar fracture. The Committee sustains only that
part of which states that Respondent failed to diagnose the fracture. Respondent
acknowledged in his testimony that he missed the fracture. However, the Committee draws
a distinction between adequately reviewing the x-rays and missing the fracture. The
Committee believed that Respondent did adequately review the x-rays but, nevertheless,
missed the fracture. The Committee ?nds no negligence with regard to 

The ?rst part of Factual Allegation E.2 alleges that Respondent failed to adequately
and appropriately treat the fracture. The remainder of E2 essentially alleges that
Respondent did not put into place an appropriate follow up mechanism with Patient E?s
orthopedist or primary care physician.

The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegation E.2. Respondent did not lea-m
of the lumbar fracture until he was contacted by the hospital radiologist following Patient E's
discharge. The Department?s expert, Dr. Braen, testi?ed that there was no need for Patient
to be admitted to the hospital. there was no immediate need for her to be seen by an
orthopedic surgeon, and that, in any case, no further treatment could have been rendered

in the emergency room. The Committee noted that Patient was to be seen by her

 

George lnnes, MD. 6 1

 

primary care physician the following day and that Dr. Braen opined that the primary care
physician could then follow up with Patient E?s treatment (T. 2321-2322).

The Committee sustains as true Factual Allegation E.3 which essentially charges
that Respondent did not change his treatment of Patient after telling Patient E's mother
about the misdiagnosis. The Committee found Patient E's mother credible with regard to
her testimony concerning this conversation. However, the Committee again does not ?nd
that Dr. Braen?s testimony'supports a ?nding of negligence, for the same reasons
discussed with regard to above.

- The Committee does not sustain Factual Allegations EA and E5. Factual Allegation
E.4 essentially alleges that Respondent failed to document in Patient E's medical record
his misreading of the x-ray and his conversation with Patient E?s mother. Factual Allegation
E.5 charges that Respondent?s documentation was not accurate or was intentionally
misleading when he omitted this information. The Committee accepts Respondent?s
testimony that he, in fact, documented both the misread and his conversation with Patient
E?s family on a continuation sheet which was subsequently lost (lnnes, T. 3774-3779). The
Committee felt this testimony was believable. It was undisputed that Respondent
telephoned Patient E's house and ultimately spoke with Patient E's mother to inform her of
the misread. Therefore, Patient E's mother and the radiologist were all aware of the
misread. It was against Respondent?s own interest to omit the misread and his
conversation with Patient E's mother from the medical record. He could not have hoped to
hide these events. The Committee found it more credible to believe that Respondent

dbcumented these events, as he testi?ed.

George lnnes. MD. 62

 

 

 

 

PATIENI I

The Patient allegations concern the events leading up to and occurring at a party
which Patient attended at Respondent's house. F.1 alleges that while driving Patient to
the party, Respondent stated that Patient would need a ?Sugar Daddy? in her life. F2
and its subparts essentially charge that Respondent exposed Patient F's breast and private
parts under the guise of examining her or showing her his ?bacterial light?.

In reaching its conclusions regarding the Patient allegations, the Committee notes
there is no dispute that at some point during the party, Respondent and Patient went into
Respondent's house in connection with a ?bacterial light?. The Committee weighed the
credibility of Respondent and Patient and determined that with regard to the 
allegations which focused on events prior to Patient F?s consumption of alcohol, Patient 
was more credible than Respondent. Patient F?s testimony was particularly impressive due
to the degree of speci?city contained in her recounting of the events. Because Patient F's
testimony was more credible With regard to these eartier events of the day, 

Respondent's ?sugar daddy? remark and the incident with the ?bacterial light?, the

 

Committee sustains as true Factual Allegations F.1, F.2, F.2.a, F.2.b, F.2.c and F.2.b. In
sustaining this series of allegations, reliance was. also, placed on Respondent?s apology to
Patient in open court (Dept?s Ex. 15). The Committee did not ?nd credible Respondent?s
testimony (T. 4409-4411) that his apology, and his acknowledgement in court that he
engaged in ?uninvited. inappropriate and offensive conduct? toward Patient . only related
to his mistake in conducting an examination at his home and to his joke about Patient 
sucking on a pretzel.

In determining whether or not to sustain the Speci?cations concerning the ?Patient 

allegations. the Committee considered whether or not Patient and Respondent had a

George Innes. MD. 6 3

 

 

physician-patient relationship. Patient remarked during her testimony that she did not
believe Respondent was examining her as a physician or treating her as a patient, and that
she thought she was only going to look at the light (T. 455). Nevertheless, the Committee
did not ?nd this testimony dispositive as to the existence of a physician-patient relationship.
Respondent, himself, testi?ed that he ?told Patient this is a good time for me to take a
look at the rash." (T. 4324). The Committee concluded that by virtue of Respondent?s own
testimony. a physician-patient relationship had been established. Additionally, were it not
for Respondent?s status as a doctor. Patient would not have gone along with
Respondent's suggestion to view the ?bacterial light?. As Patient testi?ed, the fact that
Respondent was a physician for whom her family had high regard, had a huge impact on
her actions and contributed to her both going to view the light and remaining at theparty
after the incident (T .406-407). Furthermore, when Respondent exposed Patient he used
the ?bacterial light? in a manner which provided a medical veneer to his actions.
Consequently, Factual Allegations F2 and its subparts are viewed as having occurred
within the context of a physician-patient relationship.

The Committee sustains Factual Allegations F2 and its subparts as evidencing
moral un?tness in the practice of medicine. As previously noted. the Committee accepts
Patient F's account of this incident and ?nds that he exposed Patient in the manner
described in the allegations. The Committee accepts Patient F's testimony that
Respondent was the one who brought up the rash, that the rash had basically healed and
that she made no medical complaint to Respondent. It also notes Dr. Braen's testimony.
that under such circumstances, there was no legitimate medical purpose for Respondent?s
examination (Braen, T. 2983-2984, 2988). Even assuming that Respondent engaged in the

behavior described in the allegations for the purpose of examining Patient F?s rash. his

George lnnes. MD. 6 4

 

behavior was highly inappropriate. The Committee notes Dr. Braen's testimony with regard
to the propriety of exposing a patient and the need to protect a patient?s modesty (Braen, T.
2914-2915, 2472-2473). The Committee, also, sustains these allegations under the
specification which charges that the allegations constitute the willful harassment, abuse or
intimidation of a patient.

The Committee believed Patient F?s testimony concerning the ?Sugar Daddy? remark
notwithstanding Respondent?s denial that he said this. Nonetheless, the Committee did not
believe a physician-patient relationship had been established at the time of the ?Sugar
Daddy? remark and, therefore. does not sustain Factual Allegation F.1 as either an act
evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine or as the willful harassment, abuse
or intimidation of a patient.

The Committee accepts Patient F?s testimony that she was confused and distressed
after the incident and remained at the party because her supervisor asked her to remain.

Factual Allegations F.3.a, F.3.b and F.3.c essentially allege that subsequent to the
?bacterial light? incident, Respondent twice followed Patient into his house when she went
to the bathroom and made advances toward her.

The Committee declines to sustain these allegations. While the Committee was of
the opinion that once established, the physician-patient relationship continued, it was also
undisputed that Patient consumed alcohol after the parents and campers left the picnic.
While the Department objected that Respondent did not present his wife to testify as to
Patient F's demeanor following her consumption of alcohol, the Committee noted that the
Department presented testimony from a number of Patient F?s colleagues who observed
Patient following her consumption of alcohol. The testimony of the Department?s

witnesses was viewed as being inconclusive on the question of whether Patient was

 

George lanes. MD. 65

 

 

intoxicated. The Committee, therefore, had concerns regarding Patient F's state of mind in
light of her acknowledged ingestion of alcohol, and gave Respondent's denials as to
allegations F.3.a, F.3.b and F.3.c every bene?t of the doubt. While Respondent testi?ed
that he did follow Patient into the house, the Committee accepts that he did this because
of the possibility that Patient was intoxicated. Patient F, herself, testi?ed that when
Respondent followed her to the bathroom, he stated that ?she was too drunk to go to work?.
Therefore. the Committee does not believe that the Department established these
allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Committee sustains as true Factual Allegation F.3.d which charged that
Respondent made suggestive remarks which speculated on Patient F's skill in performing
oral sex. Respondent, in his testimony. making an off color remark of this
nature to Patient while she was eating a pretzel (T. 4350). The Committee declined to
sustain F.3.d as an evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine or as the willful
harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient. The Administrative Law Judge instructed
the Committee that in order to meet the element of willfulness, the Committee needed to
?nd intent by Respondent. The Committee found that Respondent made a crude joke but
did not intend to harass, abuse or intimidate Patient F.



Factual Allegations 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 allege that Respondent pulled up Patient G's
bra and exposed her breast and touched Patient G?s vagina and clitoris without legitimate
medical purpose. The Committee declines to sustain these allegations. After assessing
Patient G's testimony against Respondent?s testimony, the Committee could not ?nd a clear
cut preponderance of credibility in Patient G?s favor. Consequently, the Committee

accepted Respondent?s testimony as to Factual Allegations 6.1, 6.2 and (3.3.

George innes. MD. 6 6

 

The Committee noted discrepancies in Patient G?s testimony. For example, Patient
testi?ed that Respondent tore her bra, brushed his ?ngertips across the nipple of a
breast, and placed the ?ngers of his left hand on her clitoris (Patient 1981-1984).
However, a typed statement prepared by Patient on the day following the alleged event
contains no mention of Respondent touching Patient G's breasts or nipples and does not
contain the word clitoris (Patient G, T. 2067-2069; Resp?s Ex. 8). Three days later, on July
9, 1999, Patient signed a second statement, and her signature was notarized by her
attorney. This statement also fails to reference any touching of the nipple or the clitoris
(Patient G, T. 2070; Resp's Ex. T).

Patient met with New York State Department of Health Investigator, Beverly
lanuzi, R.N., on July 27, 1999, just three weeks following the alleged incident (PatientG, T.
2074; Resp?s Ex. U). Patient was allowed to ?tell my story? and then was asked
questions (Patient G, T. 2075). She testi?ed that the events were disturbing to her and that
touching or fondling were the kind of things she would have reported to the Health
Department (Patient G, T. 2077-2078). However, her statement to Investigator lanuzi does
not contain any reference to the touching or fondling of her breasts or nipples by
Respondent. Rather. the statement reports that Respondent ?ripped back her bra?. The
statement also reports that Patient discussed with Investigator lanuzi the type of bra she
was wearing including the fact that the bra had a clasp in the front (Patient G, T2083-
2084). The. Committee concluded based on testimony that she mischaracterized her
bra as clasping in front rather than the back (Patient G, T. 2139-2143).

Patient also testi?ed that her claim that Respondent touched her clitoris with his
hand or ?ngers would have been the kind of information she would have reported to

investigator lanuzi, but again, this information does not appear in Patient G?s statement

George lnnes, MD. 6 7

 

 

 

(Patient G. T. 2084-2085; Resp?s Ex. U). Rather, lanuzi?s report only documents that
Patient told her that Respondent "began feeling of her stomach and lifted up the waist of
her slacks and put his hand low near her pubic area".

Neither did the Committee ?nd the testimony of Patient G's husband credible.
Patient G?s husband testi?ed that he drove up to Respondent's house less than a week
after the hospital visit "to beat the shit out of him?. However, he admitted that he gave
contrary testimony during his deposition testimony in the civil action. Although the husband
claimed he was aware of inappropriate conduct by Respondent, he did not call an
administrator, did not go to the nurse's station and complain, and permitted a nurse to give
his wife a second injection. Approximately 75 minutes transpired between the time of the
2nd Demerol administration and the time of discharge.

The Committee, therefore, could not support by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the events alleged by Patient had occurred. The Committee accepts Respondent?s
version of the events concerning Patient G, and that his actions were part of his medical
examination of Patient G. Factual Allegations 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 are not sustained.

Factual Allegation G.4 alleges that Respondent disclosed to a mutual acquaintance
that Patient had ?led a complaint and requested that the mutual acquaintance talk to
Patient and ask her to withdraw her complaint. The Committee sustains Factual
Allegation 6.4 as true based on Respondent?s testimony that he asked Mabel Walker to
intercede on his behalf and set up a meeting with Patient to determine why she was
upset. Respondent's own testimony convinced the Committee that regardless of the words
actually used, it was understood by Respondent and Ms. Walker, that he wished to have

the complaint resolved in his favor through withdrawal of the complaint.

George lnnes. MD. 5 3

 

However, the Committee was not convinced that Respondent's actions constituted
acts evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine or the willful harassment, abuse
or intimidation of a patient. The Committee also did not view that Respondent had revealed
personally identi?able patient information without the prior consent of Patient G. The
Committee believed that to the extent Respondent had disclosed any information
concerning Patient to Ms. Walker that he had treated Patient in the emergency
room, that she had headaches and that she had made a complaint), this information was
already in the public realm. The Committee was not convinced that Respondent had
disclosed to Ms. Walker that Patient had been treated with Demerol. As Ms. Walker
testi?ed, happen to be a nurse myself, so if I talk about any medications, it's because of
my own I didn't have any knowledge of what medications _she received. If I
said anything about medications, it would be on general principles.? (T. 2211).

EMELQJEEH

With the exception of Factual Allegations H.1 and HS, the Committee sustains none

of the allegations concerning Employee H. Employee claims she was sexually harassed

during the period beginning with her employment as Respondent's?

1m
Factual Allegation H.1 alleges that when Employee asked Respondent if he

needed anything, Respondent said "What I really need is a blow job.? The Committee
sustains this allegation based on the testimony of Martha Loveland, a nurse working 
 Ms. Loveland testi?ed that Employee 
complained to her on one occasion that Respondent spoke to her in the manner described
in the allegation. The Committee found Ms. Loveland to be an extremely believable

witness, and notes Ms. Loveland?s testimony that she believed Employee H. The

George Innes. MD. 6 9

 

 

 

 

Committee, however, did not ?nd that Respondent?s remark evidenced moral un?tness to
practice medicine when the remark was considered in the overall context of his relationship
with Employee H.

The Committee sustains Factual Allegation H.8 which alleges that Respondent sent
e-mails or computer messages to Employee that contained sexual images or sexual
content. Respondent acknowledged that he sent e-mails to Employee which had sexual
connotations. While the Committee understands that sexual harassment is in ?the of
the beholder?, it, nevertheless, notes Ms. Hopkins testimony that the e-mail which seemed
to offend Employee was not sexually explicit, was not pornographic, was "cute", and that
she even fonNarded it on to her mother. The Committee does not conclude that the e-mail
evidenced moral un?tness to practice medicine.

The remaining allegations concerning Employee involved allegedly inappropriate
comments by Respondent including one occasion where he asked Employee to perform
oral sex on him (Factual Allegation H.7). The Committee did notaccept Employee H?s
testimony regarding these allegations.

When it considered the record, the Committee did not ?nd Employee H's account to
be credible. Despite Employee H's claim that Respondent was inappropriate and used
language she considered harassing throughout the entire period of her employment .

549-551), she never documented her discomfort. She never complained to Nichol

 

or to Jo Ann Reid about sexual misconduct by Respondent.

The Committee found Nurse Manager. Nichol to be a credible witness. Ms.
Nichol testi?ed that Employee made frequent complaints to her about issues and people
other than Respondent. In particular, Employee complained about Dr. Naradzay and the

dif?culties that she was having working with him particularly after he took over as

George Innes. MD. 7 0

 

Department Chair. Employee also con?ded about her personal problems including
?nancial dif?culties, problems with child support issues and issues regarding her ill mother.

The Committee noted that Ms. Nichol was surprised by Employee H's resignation
and that she assumed it was related to the other matters which Employee had
complained of. Furthermore, Employee was having signi?cant problems with
absenteeism as the result of health problems. Ms. Nichol was surprised when she learned
of Employee H's lawsuit and commented that she had no knowledge of the alleged sexual
misconduct by Dr. lnnes.

The Committee found Jo Ann Reid to be a credible witness and noted her testimony
that Employee had a problem with absenteeism during her work with Ms. Reid due to
migraine headaches, and that periods of illness were a problem. Additionally, Ms. Reid was
a con?dant of Employee who frequently con?ded in Ms. Reid about problems in her
personal life even after she began working for Respondent. The Committee believed Ms.
Reid's testimony that Employee never made complaints of a sexual nature about
Respondent. Rather. the complaints dealt with management style issues. Ms. Reid was
not surprised that Employee quit her job, but like Ms. Nichol, was surprised that she
claimed the resignation was related to sexual harassment and was surprised by the sexual
harassment lawsuit. When.queried why she would be surprised, the witness answered that
 just didn't seem to ?t with what I had observed for years.? (T. 2740?2741). The
Committee also noted that Employee H?s last contact with Ms. Reid was a phone message
in 2003 in which Employee asked for her help in her lawsuit against Respondent.

Employee corroborated much of Ms. Nichol's and Ms. Reid's testimony.
She admitted that she suffered from serious migraine headaches during her employment

and that the headaches caused her to miss substantial work time. Employee H's

 

George lnnes. MD. 7 1

 

testimony, even during the State's case in chief, re?ects that the employee was concerned
about losing herjob. was upset with Respondent because he was not supporting her in her
work situation, and that she had substantial ?nancial problems.

Employee explained that she never put anything in writing about the ongoing
sexual harassment by Respondent. She explained that she did not want to put anything in
writing because she was concerned about "burning bridges" (T. 612). Nevertheless, legal
papers seeking millions of dollars in damages for 10 different causes of action were
prepared and served on'the hospital and on Respondent within 3 days of her departure.
She claimed that a lawsuit was not even discussed until she met with management for her
exit interview. and her letter of resignation mentions nothing about sexual harassment.

Employee was familiar with Respondent's sense of humor before she started
working for him (T. 624-627). There were people superior to Respondent to whom she
could have complained if she had chosen to do so. Employee admitted she was not
afraid to tell ReSpondent how she felt and. even testi?ed that she slapped him on one
occasion because she was so outraged with his comments. Employee testi?ed that she
gave Respondent numerous presents during the period in which the alleged harassment
occurred. including a cactus garden which she gave him ?ve months before she resigned.

The Committee found both Ms. Hopkins and Ms. Reid credible when they testi?ed
that after Employee resigned, she invited Ms. Hopkins to join in her lawsuit against
Respondent. The Committee found this event and the details of Employee H's invitation
damaging to the credibility of Employee H?s allegations. The Committee also found the
other events described by Ms. Hopkins, the request to follow a woman who she
suspected of having an affair with her husband, and her suspicion that someone was

searching through her of?ce, as detracting from her credibility. The Committee also found

George lnnes. MD. 7 2

 

 

credible Ms. Hopkins? testimony that there was frequent sexual bantering in the 
?It, including bantering between Respondent and Employee (T. 3344).

Ms. Tamara Robinson testi?ed that she observed Employee H, on at least two
occasions, in conversation with Patient prior to the commencement of the lawsuits by 
and against Respondent (T. 2785-2786). The Committee concludes that the apparent
relationship between Patient and Employee further diminishes their credibility.

When the Committee considered all of the above testimony, including that of Ms.
Hopkins, Nichol and Reid, and Employee H?s ?nancial and health problems and the lawsuit
she initiated, the Committee concluded that there was not a preponderance of evidence to
support the remaining allegations concerning Employee H.



The Committee sustains as true all of the Factual Allegations involving Employees I
through and with the exception of Factual Allegation N.1 which is further discussed
below, and with the exeption of the allegations2 which the Committee was instructed to
disregard. With the exception of Nurse M, the bulk of these allegations charged
Respondent with physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature. The Committee sustained
as true each of these allegations and found the witnesses presented by the Department to
be credible.

With regard to the Speci?cations alleging conduct in the practice of medicine which
evidenced moral un?tness to practice medicine, the Committee took into account the
de?nition of moral un?tness provided by the Administrative Law Judge, and Dr. Braen's

testimony concerning the formation of a physician-patient relationship and the treatment of

 

2 The allegations involving Employee have been excluded from consideration by the Committee. as

discussed in the section of this Determination and Order entitled Statement of Case.

George lnnes, MD. 7 3

 

 

staff and co-workers by a physician. The Committee concludes that because the events
alleged occurred largely within a hospital setting where Respondent held a position of
authority by virtue of his Iicensure as a physician and his position on staff, and because he
provided either physical examinations or treatments for back and neck pain within the
hospital context, the facts alleged in the sustained Factual Allegations concerning
Respondent?s treatment of Employees l, J, O. and were within the practice of medicine
and constituted moral un?tness within the practice of medicine. They violated the public
trust bestowed upon Respondent by virtue of his Iicensure, and the moral standards of the
medical community which the Committee as delegated members of that community
- represent. The Committee viewed it as self?evident that the incidents charged involved no
legitimate medical purpose, demonstrated inappropriate touching or conduct, and. that
expert testimony in each instance, was unnecessary for the Committee to draw its
conclusions. 

With regard to those speci?cations which alleged that Respondent willfully harassed.
abused or intimidated a patient either physically or verbally, the Committee extensively
discussed the de?nition of harassment. The Committee was ultimately instructed by the
Administrative Law Judge that in a context where merits were hospital employees and co-
workers of Respondent. inappropriate touching would by de?nition constitute harassment
given Respondent?s position as a doctor in the hospital and the authority his position
implied. This would be particularly so if the acts occurred within the hospital premises and
were already found by the Committee to be conduct evidencing moral un?tness to practice
medicine. The Committee consequently concluded on the basis of the aforesaid instruction
that the facts alleged concerning Respondent's actions during his treatment of Employees

I, J, 0, and constituted the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.

George lnnes. MD. 74

 

 

EMELQLEEJ
As discussed, all of the allegations are sustained as moral un?tness and as the
willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.

The allegations charge that during the course of an employee assessment/exam,
Respondent unhooked Employee l?s bra and lifted her- bra exposing her breasts, and later
said words to the effect that the person who usually performed the employee assessment
had ?missed a good one". In fact, Employee testi?ed that Respondent had actually stated
?Today?s my lucky Michael would be upset he wasn't here today". The Committee
?nds that the words uttered by Respondent, as testi?ed by Employee I, are words to similar
effect as are charged in the allegation. The Committee sustains the allegations as true.

The Committee considered that in isolation, Respondent's unhooking .of Patient I's
bra and his exposure of her breasts as part of a physical examination might not have risen
to the level of conduct evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine. However, in
the context of a stream of all too similar events occurring 'over a period of
time, as is demonstrated by the numerous sustained Factual Allegations concerning the
employee/patients, the Committee concluded that the allegations concerning Patient I
constitute moral un?tness. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee also took into
account Respondent's acceptance of the Memorandum of Agreement (Dept?s Ex. 11A).

EMELQIEEJ.

The allegations charge that during the course of providing back rubs to Patient 
for her back and/or neck pain, Respondent touched or attempted to touch patient J's
breasts and vagina, without medical purpose and that, at an a staff
party at Respondent?s house, he made advances toward Patient including an attempt to

put his hand on her crotch.

George Innes, MD. 7 5

 

 

As previously discussed, Factual Allegations, J.1 through J.1.b are sustained as
conduct within the practice medicine. Given that Respondent offered a neck massage to
Employee for headaches or neck discomfort, there was no medical purpose to his making
contact with Employee J?s vagina or breasts. The Committee concludes that the touching
was inapprOpriate and constituted moral un?tness in the practice of medicine as well as the
willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.

The Committee ?nds that the events which occurred at Respondent?s party with
respect to Employee also constituted conduct within the practice of medicine given
Respondent's position as Assistant Directorm that the
party had been given for? staff including Employee J. Also noted is Dr.
Braen's testimony regarding the detrimental effects on staff which may result from
inappropriate behavior by persons in positions of authority. The Committee concludes that

Respondent?s actions at the party constituted moral untitness in the practice of medicine.

EMELQIEEL

The Committee found Employee to be an extremely credible witness and believed
that the allegations were true. The allegations charged that Respondent made
certain offensive verbal remarks to Employee and that, on one occasion, he put his feet
on her lap. Although these allegations are unpleasant, the Committee did notconclude that
they rose to the level of moral un?tness. Employee understood that Respondent?s
comments, however offensive, were generally made in a joking manner.

According to Employee K, the incidents cited happened "out of the blue? during the
-.period they worked together and were not part of an on-going pattern (T. 112-

113). Employee agreed that Respondent did not make life dif?cult for her (T. 157), never

George Innes, MD. 7 6

 

 

threatened her employment or promotional possibilities (T. 157) and that he treated her
fairly and respected her work (T. 160).

While the Committee did not ?nd that the allegations rose to the level of moral
un?tness, it did believe that the allegations evidenced Respondent's capacity for

inappropriate behavior.

523.515!

The Committee sustains Factual Allegation M1 to the extent that Respondent Came
into the dirty utility room and closed the door behind him. The Committee does not find that
Respondent necessarily was blocking Nurse M?s exit in the sense that he was preventing
her from leaving the room.

The Committee was impressed with Nurse M's credibility and sustains Factual
Allegations M2 and M3. These allegations essentially allege that Respondent told Nurse
that she should think about what her actions were doing to Respondent's family, and that
he knew her working hours, where her daughter went to school, and when her daughter
was home alone. The Committee believed it was not unreasonable under the
circumstances for Respondent to point out to Nurse how her actions were affecting his
family. While the Committee did not ?nd that the allegations rose to the level of moral
un?tness, it did believe that the allegations again evidence Respondent's capacity for

inappropriate behavior.

George Innes. MD. 7 7

 

 

 

Factual Allegation N.?l charges that Respondent offered to pay money if Nurse 
and another nurse went to a hotel with him. The Committee ?nds that this allegation was
based entirely on Nurse N?s hearsay testimony which recounted what the other nurse had
said to her. The Committee does not ?nd the hearsay testimony reliable and declines to
sustain this allegation.

The Committee found Nurse N's testimony credible with regard to Factual
Allegations N2 and N.3 which alleged that Respondent kissed her and stuck his tongue in
her mouth without her consent. The Committee concludes that this conduct occurred on
the hospitalpremises. under the guise of discussing a patient, and, therefore. constituted
an act evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of medicine.



Factual Allegation alleges that Respondent during the course of Nurse O's
treatment for a back/neck injury with Keri lotion, touched Nurse 0's breasts which touching
had no legitimate medical purpose. The Committee believed that Nurse 0 was
extraordinarily credible and sustains Factual Allegation as me. Because Nurse 0 was
so extraordinarily credible, the Committee discounts any testimony, evidence or suggestion
that Dr. Praska denied that Nurse 0 had complained to her of Respondent?s conduct. The
Committee found very believable Nurse 0's testimony that she viewed herself as an
unattractive nurse and that she never would have expected Respondent to
make a pass at her (Nurse 0, T. 1655-1656). The Committee sustains Factual Allegation

as both moral un?tness and as the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.

George lnnes. MD. 7 8

 

 

 IENT (EMPLOYEE) 

The allegations charge that during the course of treatment for Employee P?s
sciatica. Respondent removed her underpants, touched her upper inner thigh, groin and/or
pubic area without medical purpose, and told her that she needed ?to get fucked more" or
words to that effect. On one occasion, he followed her into the darkroom x-ray area,
blocked her exit and insisted that she kiss him.

The Committee found Employee to be an  credible witness and
believed her testimony. The Committee accepted Employee P?s testimony that Respondent
touched her upper inner thigh close to her pubic area without legitimate medical purpose as
well as her testimony concerning the other allegations. The allegations are all
sustained as acts evidencing moral un?tness to practice medicine and, with the exception
of PA, as the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.



Factual Allegation 0.1 alleges that Respondent told his that there were
no other allegations or instances of misconduct against him other than the Watertown
incidents in 1998-1999 when Respondent knew there had had been other such instances
or allegations. alleges that Respondent caused the to prepare an
evaluation and recommendations which relied in part on his misrepresentation that other
than the Watertown incidents. he had no complaints against him of sexual harassment.
The evaluation and recommendations by the were ultimately submitted to
OPMC.

The Committee sustains the allegations as true. Nevertheless. the allegations
are not sustained under any of the Speci?cations. The Committee did not ?nd that

Respondent had the requisite intent to mislead Dr. Krueger. The Committee concluded

 

George lnnes. MD. ?7 9

 

that Respondent genuinely believed that he was prohibited by a con?dentiality agreement
from disclosing the sexual harassment suit against him. With regard to Employee l, the
Committee believed that notwithstanding any contrary language contained in the
Memorandum of Agreement. there was ambiguity as to whether the agreement resulted
from the hospital's perception that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate behavior that
was not intended to be sexual (Dept?s Ex. 11 and 24), or perhaps was triggered by his
angry outburst following the examination of Employee I. It was simply not clear to the
Committee that Respondent had knowingly lied to Dr. Krueger. In any event, absent Dr.
Krueger's live testimony, the Committee was unable to determine what discussions Dr.
Krueger had with Respondent or to gain adequate insight into Dr. Krueger?s thought
process in writing his report and recommendations,. Based on the above reasons, the
Committee declines to sustain the Speci?cations of moral un?tness and fraud.

Factual Allegation charges that Respondent gave false and/or intentionally
misleading answers to questions on his appointment application to the Hospital in Sidney
(the ?Sidney application). Factual Allegations and charge that Respondent gave false
and/or intentionally misleading answers to questions on his appointment application to
Canton-Potsdam Hospital (the ?Canton application?).

Initially. the Committee observes that Respondent's signature on the Sidney
application is dated April 1, 2003. On that application, Respondent did not check either
?Yes? or ?No' in response to the question ?Have you ever voluntarily or involuntarily
terminated your medical staff membership at any other organization??. Instead,

Respondent hand wrote "At the end of each contract" in answer to the question.

George lnnes. MD. 80

 

 

Factual Allegation R1 is not sustained. alleges that Respondent's response
?At the end of each contract? was false and/or intentionally misleading because his
employment contract with Finger Lakes Health and/or Geneva General Hospital (?Finger
Lakes?) was effective through June 30, 2003 and Respondent, in fact, resigned on May-8,
2002. The allegation stated that Respondent resigned only after being invited to do so
because of his disruptive behavior and inappropriate demeanor in the clinical setting.

The Committee notes that Respondent's employment contract with Finger Lakes
could be terminated without cause by either party and that Respondent signed a letter from
Finger Lakes. which acknowledged that his resignation had been accepted, effective on

May 8, 2002.

The Department presented hearsay testimony from Steven Hanks, MD. Chief
Medical Of?cer at Finger Lakes, concerning Respondent's allegedly disruptive behavior
and inappropriate demeanor in the clinical setting. The Department failed to present any
direct testimony concerning Respondent's alleged behavior. The Committee ultimately
discounted Dr. Hanks' hearsay testimony, and gave greater weight to his testimony that
Respondent resigned for reasons unrelated to clinical competency or allegations of sexual
misconduct (T. 1458-1462). In weighing Dr. Hanks? overall testimony. the Committee did
not believe it supported a conclusion that Respondent's behavior or demeanor in the
clinical setting resulted in Respondent?s invitation to resign .

The Department alleged in Factual Allegation R.2 that Respondent's response ?At
the end of each contract? was false and/or intentionally misleading because Respondent?s

temporary privileges and one year provisional status at Via Health of Wayne. New York had

 

George lnnes. MD. - 8 1

 

 

been terminated in approximately August 2001 because of Via Health's investigation of
Patient A's allegations against Respondent.

William Stroman. administrator of Via Health, testi?ed that Respondent
was employed by the Division of Rural Emergency Medicine and that
Respondent, through that group, worked at the Via Health hospitals at Newark Wayne and
Myers. The Committee concluded, on the basis of Mr. Stroman?s testimony. that Via Health
lacked the capability to terminate Respondent?s employment because it did not directly
employ Respondent (T. 1490-1491). While Via Health ultimately arranged through DCREM
to remove Respondent from any scheduling at its facilities, Via Health could not terminate
Respondent.

The Committee initially concluded, based on Mr. Stroman's testimony and the
wording of Factual Allegation R.2, that it could not sustain the language in the second and
third sentences of the allegation concerning Respondent?s termination. However, on
further re?ection. the Committee concluded that the essential thrust of Factual Allegation
R2 was that Respondent had been terminated through Via Health's direction that DCREM
not schedule Respondent to work at Via Health's facilities.

Nevertheless, the Committee does not sustain either Factual Allegation R1 or R2
because it does not ?nd that Respondent's answers were intended to be either false or
misleading. Respondent ?led a statement as part of his Sidney application
detailing that he was investigated by OPMC in connection with various allegations (Dept's
Ex. 13, hand numbered pgs. 16, 30). Logically, had Respondent intended to mislead by
omitting his interactions with Finger Lakes and Via Health, he would not have detailed other
past problems in his statement. in determining not to sustain these allegations, the

Committee took into account that Respondent did not mention the incident with Patient A'in

 

George lnnes. MD. 82

 

his statement. The Committee concluded that by referring to the other incidents described
in his statement, Respondent effectively alerted Sidney that his past could be problematic.
Respondent?s statement may have been incomplete but was not misleading. The
Committee did not believe Respondent intentionally gave a false answer. In light of
Respondent's disclosures, the Committee declines to sustain Factual Allegations R1 and
R2, and in any event would not ?nd that his answers on the Sidney application rose to the
level of moral un?tness.
FACT LL l0

Factual Allegation 8.1 charges that Respondent gave a false and/or intentionally
misleading answer when he answered ?No? to a question on the Canton application with
regard to his prior hospital medical staff membership. The allegation charges that by
answering ?No? to the question your membership, association, employment or
practice ever been limited. suspended, revoked. not renewed. granted with stated
limitations or voluntarily suspended7", Respondent intentionally misled by not disclosing
his termination from Finger Lakes.

The Committee declines to sustain Factual Allegation 3.1 because Respondent ?led
the Canton application on April 22, 2002. The allegation, itself, states that Respondent did
not resign until May 8, 2002. The Committee, therefore, concludes that Respondent could
not have intendedto mislead on the Canton application with regard to the events at Finger

Lakes by virtue of the fact that he had not yet resigned when the application was submitted.



Factual Allegation 8.2 charges that Respondent's answer ?No? to the question on
the Canton application your membership, association, employment or practice ever

been limited, suspended, revoked, not renewed. granted with stated limitations or

George lnnes, MD. 8 3

 

 

voluntarily suspended?? was false and/or intentionally misleading in that Respondent did
not disclose his termination from Via Health. and that the termination occurred subsequent
to Via Health?s investigation of the Patient A allegations.

The Committee sustains Factual Allegation 8.2 as factually true and distinguishes its
conclusions from those which resulted in it not sustaining Factual Allegations R1 and R..2.

With regard to the-Canton application, Respondent's statement concerning the OPMC

investigations stated, record is currently spotless. There are no restrictions or

censures recorded.? (Dept?s Ex. 14, pg. 9, ?rst paragraph). Additionally. Respondent

checked ?No? in response to the question, ?Have you ever been refused membership on a
hospital, medical or dental staff, association, employment. or practice at another facility. or
has your membership. association. employment or practice ever been limited, suspended,
revoked, not renewed, granted with stated limitations or voluntarily surrendered?? (Dept?s
Ex. 14, pg. 7, third question from top). The Committee did not believe Respondent was
being truthful when he checked ?No? in response to this question, or when he stated that
his record was currently spotless without recorded restrictions or censures. The Committee
notes that Respondent had entered into the Memorandum of Agreement at Albany
Memorial Hospital and views that document as a recorded restriction, and the incident with
Employee as a mark on his record. Rather than believing that Respondent?s statement of
OPMC's investigation to Canton was an attempt to be forthcoming, the Committee felt that
in this instance, it evidenced an intent to conceal. I When the Committee weighed all of
these considerations, it concluded that when Respondent answered ?No? to the question
set forth in Factual Allegation S, his answer was indeed false and/or intentionally
misleading in that he did not disclose his termination from Via Health. The Committee,

concludes that Respondent's answer ?No? constituted an act evidencing moral un?tness to

George lnnes. MD. 84

 

 

practice medicine and the fraudulent practice of medicine. The Committee, also.
concludes, in concurrence with the above, that by de?nition Respondent's answer ?No?
constituted the willful ?ling or making of a false report.

Additionally, the Committee concludes that Respondent's answer ?No? constituted a
violation of Public Health Law Section in that he did not disclose the
discontinuance of his employment at Via Health or the reasons for the discontinuance.



Factual Allegation T.1 charges that Respondent also gave a false and/or
intentionally misleading answer when he answered ?No? in response to another question on
the Canton application, ?Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, denied,
diminished, revoked, not renewed, or voluntarily surrendered?". Factual Allegation T.1
alleges that Respondent intentionally misled by not disclosing his termination from Finger
Lakes.

The Committee declines to sustain Factual Allegation T.1 based on the same
reasoning upon which it declined to ?sustain Factual Allegation 3.1. The Canton application

was ?led on April 22, 2002 while Respondent did not resign from Finger Lakes until May 8,

2002.


Factual Allegation T.2 charges that Respondent gave a false and/or intentionally
misleading answer when he answered ?No? in response to the question on the Canton
application, ?Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, denied,

diminished, revoked, not renewed, or voluntarily surrendered7", when he did not disclose

his termination from Via Health.

George lnnes. MD. 8 5

 

 

In contrast to Factual Allegation 8.2. the Committee declines to sustain this
allegation as being factually true. The question to which Reapondent answered in
Factual Allegation T.2 dealt with hospital privileges. The Committee concluded that
Respondent could justi?ably have answered ?No? because no action was ever taken
against his hospital privileges at Via Health (T. 1511), and accepted Respondent?s
testimony in which he distinguished between his employment through DCREM and his
hospital privileges (T. 4205-4214). Notwithstanding the limitation on his employment at Via
Health through DCREM, Respondent's attending privileges were unaffected and he could
see his own patients in the emergency room. His privileges were undiminished.



The Committee does not sustain the allegations other than the ?rst sentence in
Factual Allegation U.3 which states that Respondent mentioned promotional opportunities
or sent e-mails concerning promotional opportunities to Employees and R. The
allegations essentially allege that Respondent made verbal sexual overtures to Employees
and and offered employment opportunities as a quid pro quo for sexual favors.
Witnesses were presented by both the Department and Respondent with regard to the 
allegations. Employees and testi?ed for the Department, and Respondent, Pam
McLenon and Jenna Ponwitz testi?ed for the defense. Ultimately, the Committee was
confronted with con?icting accounts by the various witnesses for the Department and
Respondent. The Committee was presented with a ?He said. she said" type situation which
did not provide a basis for ?nding a clear cut preponderance of evidence in either direction.

Because the Department had the burden of proof, the Committee did not sustain the

allegations.

George lnnes, MD. 8 6

 

 

FA AL A 

The allegations allege that Respondent made certain sexually inappropriate
remarks toward Employee 8 in the hospital setting, and that he unfastened her bra and
exposed her breasts while listening to her chest. The Committee found Employee 8'
testimony credible and sustains the allegations on that basis.

Factual Allegation v.1, charges that Respondent said to Employee that 
never want to leave? thevibrating chair. The Committee sustains as true to the extent
that Respondent made a remark to that effect at a meeting at which Employee was 
present. However, the Committee notes from Employee 8' testimony that Respondent's
remark was addressed to everyone at the meeting and not speci?cally to Employee S.

Factual Allegation v.2 alleges that Respondent said to Employee 3, ?If you were the
type of girl who fooled around with married men, you?d be my ?rst choice." The 
allegations charge that after advising Employee who had a respiratory infection that he
neded to listen to her lungs, Respondent unfastened Employee 8' bra and lifted up her shirt
and bra, exposing her breasts. The Committee concludes that Factual Allegations 
and and ?V.4(ii) all constitute acts evidencing moral un?tness in the practice of
medicine, and references Dr. Braen?s testimony in support of its conclusions (see Findings
of Fact 2-12). The Committee also sustains the V.4 allegations regarding the exposure of
Employee 8' breasts as the willful harassment, abuse or intimidation of a patient.

Factual Allegations V.1 and v.3 which also alleged inappropriate remarks by

Respondent were not viewed by the Committee as rising to the level of moral un?tness.



The Committee sustains as true Factual Allegation which alleges that Respondent

sent an e-mail to a Board member and to the acting CEO of the Hospital at Sidney in an

George lnnes. MD. 8 7

 

attempt to persuade them not to report the events at the hospital to the Committee for
Physician's Health (CPH) or to OPMC. The e-mail which was entered into evidence
speaks for itself when it states that Respondent ?would also beg that none of the recent
events be reported to CPH or OPMC or my license in gene.? The Committee does not
believe that Respondent?s desire for due process at the hospital prompted him to request
that the events not be reported. In fact, Respondent had already been terminated from the
Hospital at Sidney when he sent the e-mail. After reading Public Health Law Section 
230(11) regarding the reporting of information which may reasonably appear to show that a
licensee is guilty of misconduct. the Committee concludes that Respondent's attempt to
avoid having the events reported by the hospital administration constitutes both moral

un?tness in the practice of medicine and the fraudulent practice of medicine.



In addition to the Factual Allegations which the Committee sustains above, the
Committee also sustains, on the basis of the Findings of Fact made above, the following
introductory paragraphs contained in the Factual Allegations; A. A.6, B, C, D. DJ, E, with
regard to F.1. F2 and their subparts and F3 only with respect to F.3.d. G. I, U, J, J.1, J.2.
K, M, with regard to N2 and N3, P, Q, with regard to 8.2 and and v.4.

The Committee ultimately sustained the following Speci?cations based on the

sustained Factual Allegations listed below;

George lnnes. MD. 8 8

 

 

 

Conduct in the Practice of Medicine Evidencing Mora! Un?tne?? to Practice Medicigg
Speci?cation 1- A and A2 and A.3
Speci?cation 6- and F2, F.2.a, f.2.b, F.2.c, F.2.d, F.3 and F.3.d
Speci?cation 9- and M, Ma l.1.b and 
Speci?cation 10- and J.1. J.1a, J.1.b. J.2, J.2.a, J.2.b and J.2.c
Speci?cation 14- and N1 and N2
Speci?cation 15- 0
Speci?cation 16Speci?cation 19- and 8.2
Speci?cation 22- and V2, v.4, V.4(ii)
Speci?cation 23- 
I A
Speci?cation 27- and F2, F.2.a, F.2.b. F.2.c, F.2.d 
Speci?cation 29- i and L1, and 
Specification 30- and J.1, J.1.a and J.1.b
Speci?cation 31- 0
Speci?cation 32- and R1, P2 and P.3
Speci?cation 33- V.4. V.4(i) and V.4(ii)
WEI
Speci?cation 34- and 0.2 and 0.3

Speci?cation 39- and 8.2
Speci?cation 42- 


George Innes. MD. 8 9

 

 

Speci?cation 43- A and A.6, A.6.a and A.6.b
Speci?cation 45- and 0.4
WILLFULLY MAKING OR A FALSE REPQBI

Speci?cation 50- and 8.2

FAILURE TO AQQURATE 
Speci?cation 52- D, and D.7.a

VIOLATIN TH I ALT 
Speci?cation 54- and 8.2

DETERMINATION AS TO REALTY

The Committee determines that Respondent?s?license to practice medicine should
be revoked. This determination is reached after due and careful consideration of the full
spectrum of penalties available pursuant to P.H.L ?230-a, including:

(1) Censure and reprimand; (2) Suspension of the license. wholly or partially;

(3) Limitations of the license to a speci?ed area or type of practice;

(4) Revocation of the license; (5) Annulment of the license or registration;

(6) Limitations on registration or the issuance of any further license; (7) The

imposition of monetary penalties; (8) A course of education or training;

(9) Performance of public service, and (10) Probation.

The Committee considered whether therapy might enable Respondent to continue
practicing and determined that Respondent's history demonstrates that therapy is not an
effective option to prevent lapses in his behavior. The Committee observes, for example.
that the incident with Employee/Patient occurred notwithstanding Respondent's treatment
with Dr. Land. The Committee believed that unlike drug testing, Dr. Land?s proposal (T.
3508-3512) to monitor Respondent?s behavior through feedback forms from anyone who
has meaningful contact with him staff, patients, family), was insuf?cient as a

monitoring device unless routinely required, and was too unwieldy. Dr. Land?s proposed

therapeutic intervention was considered in the context of the sustained allegations and

George Innes, MD. 9 

 

speci?cations which occurred over an approximately 15 year period, including a period
when the hearing was already in progress. In that context. Respondent?s lack of
awareness of his behavior and his inability to exercise discretion at an acceptable level do
not bode well for the success of Dr. Land's proposed therapeutic intervention. nor does the
proposed intervention allay the Committee?s concern for patients and employees who may
come in contact with Respondent. The treatment proposed does not provide a suf?cient
basis to allay the Committee's grave concerns that it would not adequately protect the
public were Respondent permitted to continue practicing medicine.

After carefully reviewing all the penalties and options available, the Committee
concludes that revocation is the only feasible result in this case. The Committee has no
suggestions as to what Respondent might do to improve his status so as to resume his
medical license. The Committee has no doubt concerning Respondent's desire to practice
medicine but the litany of Respondent?s behavioral issues are impossible to ignore,
particularly in the face of multiple acknowledgements by Respondent himself of his
behavior Memorandum of Agreement, Respondent?s apologies). The Committee
acknowledges the possibility that in the past some of the accusations may have indeed
tended to unfai?y victimize Respondent. but the length of time and consistency of the
indiscretions give the Committee no other option except for revocation.

In the end, the possibility that Respondent could be assisted to change his behavior
is severely discounted by the Committee for a number of reasons, including his
unwillingness to be forthcoming with those who might assist colleagues, Dr. Land,
CPH), and the fact that the Committee does not ?nd Dr. Land's monitoring plan to have a

credible chance of success. The duration of Respondent's indiscretions despite therapy

George lnnes. MD. 9 1

 

 

 

and practice constraints leads the Committee to be pessimistic about the possibility of
remediation and restoration of Respondent?s license to practice medicine.
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent's license to practice medicine be and hereby is and
2. This ORDER shall be effective upon service on the Respondent pursuant to Public

Health Law Section 230(10)(h).

DATED: Eggertsville New York



 
  

 

Joel H. Pau M.D., D.D.S.

Richard Lee, MD.
Stephen E. Wear, PH.D.

George lnnes. MD. 9 2

 

 

TO: Cindy Fascia, Esq.
Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct 25th Floor
Division of Legal Affairs
New York State Department of Health
Corning Tower Building
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12237

Catherine Gale, Esq.

Gale Dancks. LLC .

7136 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, New York 13066-0097

George lnnes. MD. 93

 

 

George Innes, MD.

I 

 

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

 

 

IN THE MATTER AMENDED
OF STATEMENT
GEORGE MICHAEL INNES, MD. 
CHARGES

 

 

 

GEORGE MICHAEL INNES, M.D., Respondent, was authorized to practice medicine in New
York State on February 16, 1988, by the issuance of license number 173637 by the New'York

State Education Department. Respondent is currently registered with the New York State:

Education DepartmentRespondent, on or about June 29, 2001, provided medical treatment to Patient A, a then
?fteen year old female, in the Emergency Department of Via Health/Newark Hospital in
Newark, New York. I

1. ReSpondent told the nurse that he wanted to speak to Patient A alone, and asked
the nurse to leave, or words to such effect.

2. Respondent said to Patient A, ?It?s time_to go under the covers?, or words to'such
effect. Respondent then lifted the examination own over Patient A?s head, in
such a manner that the gown was covenng her ace and exposmg her breasts.

3. Respondent touched and/or cup ed each of Patient A?s breasts, which touching
was not an appropriate art of medical worku for Patient A and/or was not
medically indicated an or had no legitimate me ical purpose.

4. Respondent asked Patient A if she ever gave oral sex, or words to such effect.

5. Respondent asked Patient A if she had ever had anal sex, or words to ?such effect.

 

 

 

6. Respondent did not document in Patient A?s medical record:

a. A breast examination.
b. Any guestionin conducted or information obtained from Patient A
regar mg sexu or sexual behavior.
7. ReSpondent asked Patient A questions regardin sexual activity and/or sexual

behavior that were not within acce ted standar of medical care and/or were
medically inappropriate and/or ha no legitimate medical purpose.

Respondent, on or about December 17, 2002, provided medical care to Patient B, a then
?fteen year old female, in the Emergency Department of Cantop-Potsdarn Hospital? 
Patient had been sent for evaluation after her school had noti?ed Child Protective

Services that Patient had bruises on her arm.

1. Respondent erformed the examination while Patient was wearing her street
clo ing an or Without requesting that the patient be gowned.

2. Respondent tried to unfasten Patient B?s bra, and had di?iculty in attem this to
do so. Respondent said, used to be good at this?, or words to such ect.

3. Respondent, after Patient B?s bra was removed, cupped and/or lifted each of
Patient B?s breasts from underneath and then dropped and/or released each one.

4. Res ndent asked Patient to drop and/or lower her skirt. Respondent then
pus ed the patient?s thighs apart.

5. Respondent said that Patient ?obviously [was] sexually active and
promiscuous?, or words to such effect.

6. Respondent said that Patient dressed ?dangerously? and ?should not dress so
provocatively?, or words to such effect.

7. Respondent le? the examination room and returned shortly. Respondent then said
to Patient B?s mother, who had been present for the exarntnation, that Patient 
dressed too dangerously and provocatively, or words to such effect.

8. Res ndent asked questions and/or made statements regardin Patient B?s mode
of ress and/or sexual that were inappropriate and/or ailed to meet
accepted standards of care. .

 

C. Respondent provided medical care to Patient C, a then twelve year old female, on or

about January 12, 2003, in the Emergency Department of Canton-Potsdam Hospital.

1. Respondent told the nurse that he wanted to speak to Patient alone, and asked
the nurse to leave, or words to such effect.

2. Respondent asked_Patient if_she had engaged in sexual intercourse and/or oral
sex With her boyfriend and/or if she had touched her boyfriend?s penis and/or if
her boyfriend had ever put his ?ngers in her vagina, or words to such effect.

3. Respondent asked Patient  questions regardin I sexual activity and/or sexual
behavwr that were not Within acce ted standar of medical care and/or were
medically inappropriate and/or ha no legitimate medical purpose.

4. Respondent did not document in Patient Q?s medical record any questioning
conducted or information obtained regarding sexual or sexual behavror.

 

Respondent provided medical care to Patient D, a then twenty year old male, on or about

November 11, 2002, in the Emergency Department of Canton-Potsdam Hospital.

1. Respondent made a diagnosis of gonorrhea, which diagnosis was not mediZ?ale
justi?ed.
2. Patient was accompanied to the hospital by a friend. Respondent walked into

the room and, in the presence of Patient D's friend, told Patient D, ?You've got
the clap?, or words to such e??ect.

3. Respondent did not ask Patient if he wanted his friend to remain present before
discussing his alleged diagnosis.

4. When Patient uestioned the diagnosis, saying that he only had one girlfriend
and that she was a good girl?, or words to. such effect, Respondent told Patient D,
?maybe your girlfriend isn?t such a good girl?, or words to such effect.

5. Respondent prescribed antibiotic therapy which was inappropriate and/or which
did not meet the standard of care.

 

6. failed to take and/or record an adequate and/or accurate history from
Patient D.

7. Patient D?s girl?'iend called and spoke to Respondent on or about the evening of
November 11, 2002, and told Res ondent that Patient D, since taking the
medication prescribed by Respon cut, was vomiting and having uncontrollable

diarrhea, or words to such effect.

a. Respondent failed to document in Patient D?s medical record this
telephone conversation and/or Patient D?s vomiting and uncontrollable

diarrhea.

 

 

 

b. Res ondent failed to advise that Patient should either alter the
me ication regimen prescribed by Respondent or be re-evaluated in the
Emergency Department.

8. Respondent wrote in Patient D?s medical record that Patient had a history of
?clap? (gonorrhea), when in fact Patient had no such history.

9. Res ondent wrote in Patient D?s medical record that Patient was having
disc argIe from his_penis, when in fact Patient made no such complaint and/or
did not ave any discharge.

Respondent provided medical care to Patient E, a then seventeen year old female, in the
Emergency Department of Canton-Potsdam Hospital on or about September 10, 2002.

Re5pondent diagnosed Patient as having a lumbar contusion.

1. Respondent failed to adequately review the x-rays of Patient and/or failed to
diagnose Patient E?s lumbar fracture.

2. Res ondent failed to provide adequate and/or appro .riate treatment for Patient E?s
lum ar fracture, and/or failed to consult an orthope ist and/or recommend that

Patient obtain such consultation and/or failed to notify Patient E?s primary care
physician. .

3. Respondent, on or about September 10, 2002, subsequent to Patient E?s discharge
from the Emergency Department, had a telephone conversation with Patient E?s
mother. Res ndent, in said telephone conversation, told Patient E?s mother that
Patient in act had a lumbar fracture. Respondent told Patient E?s mother that
the treatment for Patient E?s lumbar fracture would be the same as for
Respondent?s previous diagnosis of lumbar contusion, or words to such effect.

4. Respondent failed to document in Patient E?s medical record his telephone
conversation with Patient E?s mother and/or failed to document that the diagnosis
of lumbar fracture was not made and/or not conve ed to Patient and/or her
mother until subsequent to Patient E?s discharge cm the Emergency Department.

5. Res ndent?s documentation in Patient E?s medical record was not accurate
an or intentionall misleading With regard to when Patient E?s lumbar fracture

was diagnosed an or when the patient and/or her family were informed of the
diagnOSis of lumbar fracture. 

Respondent, on or about July 24, 1998, engaged in the following conduct toward Patient

F, a then twenty-one year old female 

which Respondent?s children participated. Respondent engaged in said conduct on the

way to and during the course of a picnic at Respondent?s residence to which Patient and

the other staff and participants in the 

 

 

I. ReSpondent asked Patient if she had a boyfriend and, upon learning that she had
begun dating her boyfriend when she was sixteen, said Patient would ?need 3
Sugar Daddy in her life?, or words to such e??ect.

2. Respondent mentioned that he was aware that Patient had had a skin rash, and
told Patient that he had alight at his home that he could use to examine her
skin, or words to such effect. Respondent took Patient into the basement or
around floor area of his house to examine her and/or demonstrate the use of the
light on her, and engaged in the following conduct:

a. ReSpondent asked Patient to turn her back to him. Respondent then
pulled Patient F?s shorts and bathing suit bottom away from her body,
exposin her buttocks, which conduct had no le itimate medical purpose.

b. Respon cut, when Patient turned around, grab ed the front of her shorts
and bathing suit bottom and pulled them away from her body, exposing
her pubic area, for no legitimate medical purpose.

c. Respondent moved the light so that it shone on Patient F?s roin area.
Respondent said ?There isn?t even any bacteria down there or words to
such effect.

d. Respondent grabbed the top of Patient F?s bathing suit and exposed one

breast, which conduct had no legitimate medical purpose.

3. Res ondent, on or about July 24, 1998, subsequent to his bringing Patient]: into
his case to examine her, engaged 1n the following conduct toward Patient F:

a. Respondent, after alcoholic beverages had been served, followed Patient 
into the house When she went to use the bathroom, and asked her if she
was too drunk to give him a kiss, or words to such e?'ect.

b. Respondent put his hand on Patient F?s clothed buttocks and rubbed them.

c. Respondent, when Patient again went into the house to use the
bathroom, followed Patient upstairs.

d. Respondent, in the presence of others, made suggestive remarks
speculating on Patient F?s skill tn performing oral sex.
Respondent, on or about July 5, 1999, provided medical care to Patient G, a then thirty-
one year old female, in the Emergency Department of Samaritan Medical Center,

Watertown, New York. Patient. G?s complaint was severe headache with nausea and

photophobia.

1. Respondent pulled up Patient G's bra, exposing her breasts, which conduct had no
legitimate medical purpose. -

2. Res ndent touched Patient G?s vaginal area, which conduct had no legitimate
me ical purpose.

 

 

3, Respondent touched Patient G?s clitoris, which conduct had no legitimate medical
purpose. -

4. Respondent, upon learning that Patient had made a complaint about Respondent
to Samaritan Medical Center, disclosed to a mutual acquaintance that Patient 
had been treated by Respondent and had ?led a complaint against him.
Respondent asked the mutual ac uaintance to talk to Patient and ask her to
withdraw her complaint against eSpondent.

Respondent, on various occasions between approximately November 1997 and March

1999 engaged in inappropriate conduct toward Employee H, who was then employed by

Samaritan Medical Center 

Respondent was the Director of the Department of Emergency Medicine.

Respondent?s conduct included the following:

1. Respondent, when asked by Employee in the course of her employment if he
nee ed anything, said ?what I really need is a blow job" or words to such e??ect.

2. Res ndent, when asked by Em loyee in the course of her employmentif he
neeheci?f anything, said need a londe, 5 feet 4, with no morals? or words to
sue ect.

3. Respondent told Employee H: am the Director of the Department, and if I
wanted to, I could close the door and tell you to dro down to your knees and give
me a blow and I would not need anyone in this ospital to give me

permissron or words to such effect.

4. 7 Respondent asked Employee ?what is the kinkiest sex you ever had?? or words
to such effect.

5. Respondent told Employee explicit details of his sexual encounters.

6. Res ndent, if Employee appeared to be in a good mood when she came in to
wor said ?You must have gotten something last night. I?m glad somebody did?
or words to such effect.

7. Respondent told Employee that his wife was makin him sleep on the couch, or
words to such effect, tal ed about how his career and 's mama were ruined,
and said that he was thinking about committing suicide, or war to such effect.
When Employee offered sympath to Respondent, Respondent then asked
Employee to perform oral sex on 'm or made other remarks of a sexual nature.

8. Respondent sent E-mails and/or computer messages to Employee that contained
sexual images and/or sexual content.

 

 

 

Respondent, on various occasions between 1990 and 1996, at Albany Memorial Hospital

in Albany, New York, engaged in the following conduct toward Patient (Employee) 1:

1. Res ondent, during the course of an employee assessment/exam he was
per ormmg on Patient (Employee) I, engaged in the following conduct:

a.
b.

Ce

ReSpondent unhooked Patient I?s bra.
Respondent lifted up Patient I?s bra and exposed her breasts.

Res ondent, referring to Patient I, said that the erson who usually
per ormed the employee assessments/physicals ad ?missed a good one?

or words to such effect.

Respondent, on various occasions, between 1990 and 1996 at Albany Memorial Hospital,

offered back?rubs to staff. Patient (Employee) accepted ReSpondent?s offer to help her

back and/or neck pain.
1. Respondent, during the course of said treatment of Patient (Employee) J, engaged
in the following conduct: .
a. Respondent touched or attempted to touch Patient ?3 breasts, which
conduct had no legitimate medical purpose. .
b.

Resgondent touched or attempted to touch Patient J?s vaginal area, which 
con not had no legitimate medical purpose.

2. Respondent, durin the course of a arty for WW at
ndent?s resi ence in Cli?on ark, New or engage in the following

Res

con uct toward Employee J:

a.

C.

Respondent, while Employee was in Respondent?s swimming pool, tried
to and/or did put his hand on Employee ?5 crotch.

Respondent followed Employee when she went upstairs to use the
bathroom and tried to kiss her.

Respondent put his hand on Employee J?s buttocks.

Respondent, on various occasions between 1990 and 1996 at Albany Memorial Hospital,

engaged in the following conduct toward Employee K:

1. Respondent, while Employee was seated, put his foot or feet in Employee K?s
lap and/or onher hip.

2. Respondent asked Employee to run away with him and have an affair with him,
or words to such effect.

 

 

Respondent said to Employee ?Let?s open a bordello and you can be our main
whore?, or words to such effect.

ReSpondem told Employee ?you don?t know what a big penis is because you
are married to an onemal?, or words to such effect.

5i:



 

 

 

 

2?

Respondent, after Nurse had told Nurse about Respondent?s conduct, and after
Nurse had reported said conduct to her supervisor, engaged in the following conduct

toward Nurse at Albany Memorial Hospital:

1. Respondent, when Nurse was alone in the utility room and/or the medication
room, came into the room and closed the door behind him and/or blocked Nurse
M?s exrt.

2. Respondent said that Nurse should ?think about what this was doing to
[Respondent?s] wife and children", or words to such effect. . 

3. ReSpondent told Nurse that he ?knew a lot of things about her,? that he ?knew
what hours she worked,? that he ?knew where her daughter went to school,? and
that he ?knew when her daughter would be home alone?, or words to such effect.

Respondent, on various occasions between 1988 and 1990 at St. Peter?s Hospital, in

Albany, New York, engaged in the following conduct toward Nurse N:

1. Respondent offered to pay money if Nurse and another nurse went to a hotel
room  Respondent, or words to such effect.

2. Respondent told Nurse that he needed to Speak with her in his of?ce about a
patient, or words to such effect. Respondent then brou Nurse into his of?ce
and closed the door. Respondent then grabbed Nurse and kissed her on the
mouth, without Nurse N?s consent.

3. Respondent put or attempted to put his tongue in Nurse N?s mouth without her
consent.

Respondenuon an occasion between 1988 and 1990 at St. Peter?s Hospital, offered to

treat Patient (Nurse) 0?s neck and/or back injury with a hot Keri Lotion treatment and/or

massage. Respondent, during the course of said treatment, touched Patient 0?s breasts,
which touching had no legitimate medical purpose.

Respondent, on an occasion between 1988 and 1990 at St. Peter?s Hospital, when asked

by Patient (Employee) if he could help her sciatica, offered to treat Patient P?s sciatica

with a hot Keri Lotion treatment and/or massage. Respondent, during the course of said

treatment, engaged in the following conduct:

 

 

1. Res Iondent removed Patient P?s underpants, which conduct had no legitimate
me real purpose. 

2. Respondent touched Patient P?s upper inner thigh and/or groin and/0r pubic area,
which conduct had no legitimate medical purpose.

3. Respondent told Patient ?your problem is that you need to get fucked more," or
words to such effect.

4. Respondent, on one occasion subsequent to his treatment of Patient P, followed
Patient into the darkroom of the x-ray area. Res ondent blocked Patient P?s
exit, and asked Patient for a kiss and/or tried to iss Patient and/or told Patient
that if she gave himjust one kiss he would let her leave, or words to such effect.

Respondent, in July and August 1999, was evaluated by a employed by?

Respondent and/or Respondent?s attorney to evaluate Respondent. The was i

to prepare a report to send to Respondent?s attorney, which report could be forwarded to

- the Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Respondent understood this, and agreed to

the evaluation. The prepared a report, which he submitted to Re3pondent?s

attorney, which report was in turn submitted by Respondent?s attorney to the Of?ce of

Professional Medical Conduct. 9 

1. . Respondent, in the evaluation, told the that other than the incidents in
Watertown in 1998-1999, there had been no other instances or alle ations of
misconduct against him. In fact, there had been other instances an or allegations
against Respondent, and ReSpondent knew such fact.

2. Respondent caused the to prepare an evaluation and recommendations
which, in part, relied on Respondent?s misrepresentation that other than the
incidents in Watertown, he had no complaints against him of sexual harassment.

Respondent, on or about March 25, 2003 submitted an Application for Appointment to

the Medical Staff to The Hospital in Sidney, New York. Respondent, in response to the

application question ?Have you ever voluntarily or involuntarily terminated your
medical staff membership at any other organization??, answered ?At the end of each
contract?. Respondent's answer was false and/or intentionally misleading in that:

1. Respondent, on or about January 31, 2002, entered into an_err(ijployment contract
with Fingerlakes Health andlor Geneva General Hospital, in eneva, New York,
as an Emergenc Department Said contract was to remain in full force
and effect until une 30, 2003, unless earlier terminated as rovided in the

contract. Following administrative assessment of Respon ent?_s allegedly
disruptive ?behavior with Emergency Room nursing staff and 1118 allegedly

10

 

inappropriate demeanor in the clinical setting, Fingerlakes Health and/or Geneva
General HOSpital decided to invite ReSpondent?s resignation. Respondent

re51 gned on or about Ma 8, 2002, pursuant to terms and conditions set forth in a
letter agreement dated ay 8, 2002.

2. Respondent, on or about October 2000, was ranted tempor privileges and a
one year provisional status at Via Health of ayne, New Yor which has
hospitals 1n Newark, New York [Newark Hospital] and Sodus, New York [Myers
Hospital]. Respondent?s association with Via Health ended in approximately
August 2001, when Respondent was terminated. Res ondent?s termination
occurred subse uent to ta Health?s investigation of atient Q?s allegations
against Respon ent.  

S. Respondent, on or about April 22, 2002 submitted an Application for Appointment to the

Medical Staff to Canton-Potsdam HOSpital, Canton, New York. Respondent, in response

to the application question: ?Has your membership [on a Hospital Medical Staff],

Association, employment or practice ever been limited, suspended, revoked, not

renewed, granted with stated limitations or voluntarily surrendered??, answered

Respondent?s answer was false and/or intentionally misleading, in that:

 

1. Respondent, on or about January 31, 2002, entered into an em loyment contract
with Fingerlakes Health and/or Geneva General Hospital, in eneva, New?York,
as an Bmergenc Department Physician. Said contract was to remain in full force
and effect until une 30, 2003, unless earlier terminated as provided in the
contract. Following administrative assessment of ReSpondent?s allegedly
disruptive behavior with Emergency Room nursing staff and his alleg/edly
inappro riate demeanor in the clinical setting, Fingerlakes Health an or Geneva
Gener Hospital decided to invite Respondent?s resignation. Respondent .
resigned on or about Ma 8, 2002,2pursuant to terms and conditions set forth tn a
letter agreement dated ay 8, 200 .

2. Respondent, on or about October 2000, was granted tempo privile es and a
one year provisional status at Via Health of ayne, New 33, which
hospitals in Newark, New York Newark Hospital and Sodus, New York [Myers
Hospital . Respondent?s association with Via He th ended in approximately
August 001, when Res ondent was terminated. Re ndent?s termination
occurred subse uent to in Health?s investigation of atient A?s allegations

against Respon ent. .

 

T. Respondent, in the Canton application, answered ?No? to the question: ?Have your
privileges at any hOSpital ever been suspended, denied, diminished, revoked, not

renewed, or voluntarily surrendered?? Respondent?s answer was false and/or

intentionally misleading, in that:

1. Respondent, on or about January 31, 2002, entered into anem loyrnent contract
with ingerlakes Health and/or Geneva General Hospital, in eneva, New York,
as an Emergency Department Physician. Said contract was to remain in full force

 

ll

 

and effect until June 30, 2003, unless earlier terminated as provided in the
contract. Following administrative assessment of Respondent?s allegedly
disruptive behavior withEmergency Room nursing staff and his allegedly
inappropriate demeanor in the clinical setting, Fingerlakes Health and/or Geneva
General Hospital decided to invite Respondent?s resignation. ReSpondent
resigned on or about May 8, 2002, pursuant to terms and conditions set forth in a
letter agreement dated May 8, 2002.

2. Re5pondent, on or about October 2000, was anted tempor privileges and a
one year provisional status at Via Health of ayne, New Yor which has
hospitals in Newark, New York [Newark Hospital] and Sodus, New York [Myers
Hospital]. Respondent?s association with Via Health ended in approximately
August 2001, when Respondent was terminated. Res ondent?s termination
occurred subse uent to ia Health?s investigation of atient A?s allegations

against Respon ent.
U. Respondent, on or about May 1, 2004, outside of The Community Lounge in Sidney,
New York, said to Employee and Employee Q, ?You have a tongue ring and you don?t.
Why don?t we get in my truck and you can both do me and I Can compare?, or words to
such effect. Employee and Employee re?tsed. ReSpondent, after the May 1, 2904
incident, engaged in the following conduct toward Employee and/or Employee at

The Hospital in Sidney, New York:

1. Respondent said ?You are all talk and no action", or words to such effect.

2. Respondent said ?The offer is still open, my truck is parked outside?, or words to
such effect.

3. Respondent mentioned and/or sent e-mails regarding promotional opportunities in
The Hospital to Em loyee and/pr Employee and/or mentioned work re-
assignments to wor With their friends. Respon ent, after mentiomn sand
promotional opportunities to Employee and/or Employee Q, woul sometimes
528! at the end of such conversation and/or in close proximity to_ such conversation
h, the way, the offer is still Open, my truck is parked outsrde." or words to

such ect.

 

Respondent engaged in the following conduct toward Patient (Employee) at The

Hospital in Sidney: 

1. Respondent, in a meeting with Employee and a sales representative and/or
others re arding the purchase of equipment, said to Employee S, ?We?ll get you a
heated, Vibrating chair and you?ll never want to leave?, or words to such effect.

2. Respondent said to Em loyee ?If you were the type of girl who fooled around
with married men, you be my ?rst choice?, or words to such effect.

12

 

 

 

 

W.



3. Respondent, when Emplo ee was going on vacation, said to Employee ?at
least bring me a picture 0 you in a or words to such effect.

4. Employee was ill with a respiratory infection and/or other illness, and was
treated in the Emergency Department of The Hospital. Respondent gave
Employee samples of an antibiotic. Therea?er, Respondent saw Employee at
work, and told her that he ?needed to listen to her lungs to see if the antibiotics
were working? or words to such effect. Respondent had Em loyee step into his
of?ce, which is also a conference room, and engaged in the ollowing conduct:

ReSpondent unfastened Employee S?s bra.

(ii) Respondent lifted up Employee S?s shirt and bra and exposed her breasts.

Respondent, on or about August 7, 2004, sent an e-mail to a Board member and the

acting CEO of The Hospital wherein Respondent attempted to persuade them to not
report the events at The Hospital in Sidney to either the Committee for Physicians? Health
(CPI-I) or the Of?ce of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC).

,13

 

 

SPECIFICATION OF 

FIRST THROUGH TWENTY-THIRD SPECIFICATIONS
MORAL UNFITNESS
Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his committing conduct
in the practice of medicine that evidences moral un?tness to practice medicine in violation of
New York Education Law ?6530(20), in that Petitioner charges:
1. The facts in Paragraphs A and A.l and/or-VAJ and/orA.3 and/or A.4

and/or A.5 and/or A.7.
2. . The facts in Paragra hs and 82 and/or 33 and/or B.4 and/or 83  
3.6 and/or 3.7 and/gr 13.3. 

The facts in Paragraphs and and/or C.2 and/or C.3.
The facts in Paragraphs and D2 and/or D. 4 and/or D.8 and/or D9.

The facts in Paragraphs and 13.5.

The facts in Paragraphs and .1 and/or F2 and F.2(a) and/or F26)
and/or F.2 c) and/or F.2(d) and/or .3 and F.3(a) and/or F.3(b) and/or
F.3(c) an 

7. The facts in Paragraphs and 0.1 and/or 62 and/or 63 and or 0.4.

8. The facts in Paragraphs and H.l and/or H. 2 and/or H.3 and/or H.4
and/or H.5 and/or and/or H.7 and/or H.8.

99's??

9. The facts in Paragraphs 1, and/or I.l(a) and/or I.l(b) and/or Me).

10. The facts in Para J, and/or 1.2 and J.2(a)
and/or audit: 

i 11. The facts in Paragraphs and K.l and/or K2 and/or and/or K.4.

12. The facts in Para raphs L, and r..1 and/or L.l(c)
and/or LI d) ancior L3 and L.3(a and/or L.3 L.4 and/or 
LG and L. and/or L.6(b) and/or L. 

13. The facts in Paragraphs and NH and/or M.2 and/pr N13.

14. The facts in Paragraph and NJ and/or N.2 and/or N3.

15. The facts in Paragraph 0. 

16. The facts in Paragraphs and P.1 and/or P.2 and/or P.3 and/or PA.

17. The facts in Paragraphs and and/or Q2.

18. The facts in Paragraphs and R.l and/or R.2.
l4

 

 

 

 

19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

The facts in Paragraphs and 8.1 and/or 82.
The facts in Paragraphs and T.1 and/or T2.
The facts in Paragraphs and/or U.l and/or U.2 and/or U.3.

The facts in Paragraphs and/or V.1 and/or v.2 and/or v.3 and/or 
and/or 

The facts in Paragraph W.

TWENTY-FOURTH THROUGH THIRTY-THIRD SPECIFICATIONS
HARASSING 0R ABUSING A PATIENT PHYSICALLY

AN DIOR VERBALLY

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his willfully harassing,

abusing, or intimidating a patient either physically or verbally, in violation of New York

Education Law ?6530(31), in that Petitioner charges:

24.

25.

26.
27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

The facts in Paragraphs A and A.l and/or A.2 and/or A.3 and/or A.4
and/or A.5 and/or A.7. 

The facts in Paragraphs and B2 and/or B.3 and/or B.4 and/or B.5 and/or
3.6 and/or B.7 and/or 8.8.

The facts in Paragraphs and and/or 02 and/or C.3.

The facts in Paragraphs and F.l and/or F.2 and F.2(a) and/or F.2(b)
and/or and/or F.2(d) and/or P.3 and F.3(a) and/or F.3(b) and/or
and/or 

The facts in Paragraphs and 0.1 and/or 6.2 and/or 0.2 and or 0.4. 
The facts in Paragraphs I, 1.1 and I.l(a) and/or I.l(b) and/or 

The facts in Paragraphs 1, .1 and/or and/or 

The facts in Paragraph 0.

 facts in Paragraphs and RI and/or P.2 and/or P.3 and/or PA.
The facts in Paragraphs v.4 and V.4(i) and/or 

15

 

 

 

THIRTY-FOURTH AND THIRTY-FIFTH SPECIFICATIONS
REVEALING INFORMATION WITHOUT CONSENT

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his revealing
personally identi?able facts or information obtained in a professional capacity without the prior
consent of the patient, except as authorized or required by law, in violation of New York

Education Law ?6530(23), in that Petitioner charges:

34. The facts in Paragraphs and D.2 and/or 0.3.
35. The facts in Paragraphs and 0.4.

THIRTY-SIXTH THROUGH FORTY-SECOND SPECIFICATIONS
FRAUDULENT PRACTICE .1

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his practicing medicine

fraudulently in violation of New York Education Law 6530(2), in that Petitioner charges:

36. The facts in Paragraphs and D8 and/or D9.
37. The facts in Paragraphs and 1-3.5.

38. The facts in Paragraphs and Q.l and/or Q2.
39. i The facts in Paragraphs and RI and/or R2.
40. The facts in Paragraphs and 8.1 and/or 8.2.
41. The facts in Paragraphs and TJ and/or T2.
42. The facts in Paragraph W.

16

 

 

 

 

ORTY-THIRD THROUGH FORTY-SEVENTH SPECIFICATIONS

NEGLIGENCE 0N MORE THAN ONE OCCASION

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his practicing medicine

with negligence on more than one occasion in violation of New York Education Law 6530(3),

in that Petitioner charges:

43.

45.
46.

47.

The facts in Paragraphs A and A.1 and/or A2 and/or A.3 and/or AA
and/or A.5 and/or A.6 and/or A.6(a) and/or A.6(b) and/or A.7.

The facts in Paragraph and and/or 32 and/or 83 and/or B.4 and/or
B.5 and/or 3.6 and/or B.7 and/9r 8.8.

The facts in Paragraphs and and/or C.2 and/or C.3 and/or CA.

The facts in Paragraphs and DJ and/or D.5 and/or [3.6 and/or DJ and
7(a) and/or 

The facts in Paragraphs and El and/or E.2 and/or E.3 and/or E4. 7

FORTY-EIGHTH THROUGH IFTY-FIRST SPECIFICATIONS
WILLFULLY MAKING OR FILING A FALSE REPORT

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his making or ?ling a

false report, in violation of New York Education Law 6530(21), in that Petitioner charges:

48.
49.
50.
51.

The facts in Paragraphs and D.8 and/or D9.
The facts in Paragraphs and 13.5.

The facts in Paragraphs and and/or 82.
The facts in Paragraphs and T.l and/or T2.

17

 

 

 

FIFTY-SECOND AND FIFTY-THIRD SPECIFICATIONS
FAILURE TO KEEP ACCURATE RECORDS

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his failure to maintain a
record for each patient which accurately re?ects the evaluation and treatment of the patient, in

violation of New York Education Law 6530(32), in that Petitioner charges:

52. The facts in Paragraphs D, DJ and D.7(a) and/or D.8 and/or D.9. 
53. The facts in Paragraphs and E4 and/or 135.

FIFTY -FOURTH AND FIFTY-FIFT SPECIFICATIONS
VIOLATING PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
Respondent is charged with professional misconduct by reason of his violating section
twenty-eight hundred and three-d or ?verity-eight hundred and ?ve-k of the public health law, in
violation of New York Education Law 6530(14), in that Petitioner charges:

54. The facts in Paragraphs and and/or 8.2.
55. The facts in Paragraphs and T.l and/or T.2.

DATED: 2004

Albany, New York

%u 9429

Deputy counsel
Bureau of Professional
Medical Conduct

18

 

STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

433 River Street, Suite 303 Troy, New York 12180-2299



. w? 

Antonia Novello. M.D., M.P.H. Dennis P. WhaIen
Commissioner Executive Deputy Commissioner

   

August 4, 2005

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Cindy Fascia, Esq. George Michael Innes, MD.
NYS Department of Health c/o Catherine Gale, Esq.
ESP-Corning Tower-Room 2509 Gale Dancks, LLC
Albany, New York 12237 7136 East Genesee Street

Fayetteville, New York 13066?0097
RE: In the Matter of George Michael Innes, M.D.

Dear Parties:

Enclosed please ?nd the Determination and Order (No. 05~53) of the Professional
Medical Conduct Administrative Review Board in the above referenced matter. This
Determination and Order shall be deemed effective upon receipt or seven (7) days after mailing
by certi?ed mail as per the provisions of ?230, subdivision 10, paragraph of the New York
State Public Health Law.

Five days after receipt of this Order, you will be required to deliver to the Board of
Professional Medical Conduct your license to practice medicine if said license has been revoked,
annulled, suspended or surrendered, together with the registration certi?cate. Delivery shall be
by either certi?ed mail or in person to: 

Of?ce of Professional Medical Conduct
New York State Department of Health
Hedley Park Place

433 River Street-Fourth Floor

Troy, New York 12180

If your license or registration certi?cate is lost, misplaced or its whereabouts is otherwise
unknown, you shall submit an af?davit to that effect. If subsequently you locate the requested
items, they must then be delivered to the Of?ce of Professional Medical Conduct in the manner

noted above.

This exhausts all administrative remedies in this matter 
Sincerely,
Sean D. O?Brien, lDirector
Bureau of Adjudication

SDO:cah

Enclosure

 

 

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT

In the Matter of

George Michael Innes, M.D. (Respondent) Adminisn'a?ve ReVieW Board (ARB)

A proceeding to review a Determination by 2 Determination and Order No' 0563

Committee (Committee) from the Board for

Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC)   

Before ARB Members Pellman, Wagle and Briherl
Administrative Law Judge James F. Horan drafted the Determination

 

For the Department of Health (Petitioner): Cindy M. Fascia, Esq.
For the Respondent: Pro Se

After a hearing below, pursuant to N. Y. Pub Health Law (PHL) 230(10) (McKinney
Supp. 2005), a three-member BPMC Committee determined that the Respondent engaged in
extensive and repeated professional misconduct, that included inappropriate touching of and
comments to patients, without medical justi?cation. The Committee voted to revoke the
Respondent?s License to practice medicine in New York State (License). In this proceeding
pursuant to PHL ?23 both parties ask the ARB to modify that Determination. The
Petitioner asks the ARB to sustain additional charges and the Respondent asks the ARB to
overturn the revocation. After reviewing the hearing record and the review submissions from the

parties, the ARB votes 4-0 to af?rm the Committee?s Determination in full.

Committee Determination on the Charges

A three-member BPMC Committee conducted a twenty-day hearing into charges that the

Respondent committed professional misconduct in practicing medicine and violated N. Y. Educ.

 

ARB Member Stanley Grossman, MD. recused himself from participating in this case. The ARB reviewed the
case with a four-member quorum, see Matter of Wolkoff v. Chassin, 89 250 (1996).

 

 

 

Law 6530(14), 6530(20-21) 6530(23) 6430(31532) (McKinney Supp.
2005) under the following speci?cations:

- practicing medicine fraudulently;

- practicing medicine with negligence on more than one occasion; 

- violating PHL 2805-k by failing to provide true and accurate information in

seeking professional privileges from a hospital;

- engaging in conduct that evidences moral un?tness;

- willfully ?ling a false report;

- revealing personally identi?able patient information without patient consent;

- willfully harassing, abusing or intimidating a patient; and,

- failing to maintain accurate patient records.
The charges related to the care that the Respondent, an emergency room physician, provided to
several patients and to staff at several facilities at which the Respondent worked and to the
Respondent?s interactions with facility staff. The charges also related to the Respondent?s
application for staff appointment at a facility and the Respondent?s communication to a Board
Member and administrator at a facility. The charges date from on or about 1988-1990 until
August 2004. The Respondent received his License in 1988. As relevant on this review, the
charges allege that the conduct at issue took place at several facilities in New York [Via
Health/Newark Hospital, Canton?Potsdam Hospital, Albany Memorial Hospital, St. Peter?s
Hospital Albany and The Hospital in Sidney, New York] and at a party [Patient The charges
refer to Patients and staff by initials to protect privacy.

After conducting the hearing, the Committee rendered a Determination that found that the
Respondent evidenced moral unfitness in practice in by touching inappropriately and without
medical reason and/or making inappropriate comments to Patients A and F, and Employees 1, J,
O, and S. The Committee found that the conduct also amounted to willfully harassing or
intimidating F, I, J, O, and S. The Committee also determined that the Respondent evidenced
moral un?tness in kissing Nurse N, without her consent on hospital grounds. The Committee

found that the Respondent released patient information without consent concerning Patient and

.2-

 

 

 

that the Respondent failed to maintain an accurate record for Patient .D. The Committee found
that the Respondent practiced medicine with negligence on more than one occasion in treating
Patients A and C, by failing to record medical information on patient charts that could affect
future patient care. Further, the Committee determined that the Respondent made an intentionally
misleading answer in failing to disclose his termination from Via Health on an application to
Canton?Potsdam Hospital. The Committee concluded that the answer amounted to practicing
fraudulently, engaging on conduct that evidences moral unfitness, ?ling a false report and
violating PHL 2805-k by failing to provide true and accurate information in seeking
professional privileges from a hospital. Finally, the Committee found that the Respondent sent an
electronic mail or computer message to a Board Member of and the acting CEO of the Hospital I
at Sidney asking that they make no report about recent events at the Hospital to the Committee
for Physician?s Health (CPH) or the Of?ce for Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC). The
Committee found that the Respondent made inappropriate remarks to Employee at the Hospital
during an employee physical in 2002. The Committee found that the Respondent?s message to
the of?cials at the Hospital amounted to practicing fraudulently and engaging in conduct that
evidences moral un?tness.

The Committee voted to revoke the Respondent? License. The Committee rejected the
Respondent?s suggestiOn that therapy would assist the Respondent to correct his behavior. The
Committee noted that the Respondent entered into a contract with CPH in 2001 in which the
Respondent received treatment with Dr. Linda Land. In that contract, the Respondent agreed to
treat all patients with dignity and refrain from sexual innuendo, harassment, intimidation or
seduction. The Respondent?s conduct toward Employee occurred after the Respondent entered
into the CPH Contract. The Committee found that the Respondent lacked awareness concerning
his problem and that he showed an inability to exercise discretion. The Committee concluded

that no penalty other than revocation would protect the public adequately.

-3-

 

 

 

Review History and Issues

The Committee rendered their Determination on March 28, 2005. This proceeding
commenced on April 14 April 15, 2005, when the ARB received the Review Notices from the
Respondent and then the Petitioner. The record for review contained the Committee's .
Determination, the hearing record, the Petitioner?s brief and reply brief and the Respondent's
brief and reply brief. The record closed when the ARB received the Petitioner?s reply brief on
May 25, 2005.

The Respondent asks that the ARB overturn the Committee?s Determination to revoke
the Respondent?s License. The Respondent argues that the Committee, the Petitioner and the
Petitioner?s expert engaged in misconduct and that the Respondent failed to receive due process
or the opportunity to offer a defense. The Respondent argued that the Committee erred in the
charges they sustained and the Respondent challenged the Committee?s ?ndings on the charges
the Committee sustained. The Respondent characterized himself as an extraordinary physician,
with much to offer patients and he argued that he can change his approach to patients and
comply with monitoring.

The Petitioner asked that the Committee sustain the Committee?s factual ?ndings and the
determination to revoke the Respondent?s License. The Petitioner requests further that the ARB
sustain additional misconduct charges with the Committee?s ?ndings as the basis. Following the
Respondent?s reply brief, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Administrative Of?cer for the ARB
asking that the Administrative Of?cer instruct the ARB to disregard certain material in the reply

brief.

 

 

 

ARB Authori

Under PHL 230(10)(i), 230-c(1) and the ARB may review
Determinations by Hearing Committees to determine whether the Determination and Penalty are
consistent with the Committee's ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law and whether the Penalty
is appropriate and within the scope of penalties which PHL ?230-a permits. The ARB may
substitute our judgment for that of the Committee, in deciding upon a penalty Matter of Bogdan
v. Med. Conduct Bd. 195 86, 606 381 (3rd Dept. 1993); in determining guilt on
the charges, Matter of Spartalis v. State Bd. for Prof. Med. Conduct 205 940, 613 NYS
2d 759 Dept. 1994); and in determining credibility, Matter of Miniellv v. Comm. of Health,
222 750, 634 856 (3rd Dept. 1995). The ARB may choose to substitute our
judgment and impose a more severe sanction than the Committee on our own motion, even
without one party requesting the sanction that the ARB ?nds appropriate, Matter of Kabnick v.
91318819, 89 828 (1996). In determining the appropriate penalty in a case, the ARB may
consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as well as considering the protection of
society, rehabilitation and deterrence, Matter of Brigham v. DeBuono, 228 870, 644
413 (1996).

The statute provides no rules as to the form for briefs, but the statute limits the review to
only the record below and the briefs so the ARB will consider no evidence
from outside the hearing record, Matter of Ramos v. DeBuongL 243 847, 663 

361 (3rd Dept. 1997).

-5-

 

 

 

A party aggrieved by an administrative decision holds no inherent right to an
administrative appeal from that decision, and that party may seek administrative review only
pursuant to statute or agency rules, Rooney v. New York State Department of Civil Service, 124
Misc. 2d 866, 477 939 (Westchester Co. Sup. Ct. 1984). The provisions in PHL ?230-c

provide the only rules on ARB reviews.

Determination

The ARB has considered the record and the parties' briefs. We af?rm the Committee?s
Determination that the Re3pondent committed professional misconduct. We refuse to consider
matters outside the record or beyond our authority, we ?nd no matters in the record to merit a
remand for further proceedings and no grounds on which to sustain further charges. We af?rm
the Committee?s Determination to revoke the Respondent?s License.

Matters Outside Record and Authority: The Petitioner complained that the
Respondent?s reply brief referenced matters outside the record and asked that our Administrative
Of?cer issue instructions to or to provide additional material to the ARB. The Administrative
Of?cer issued no instructions and provided no additional material in this case to the ARB and the
Administrative Of?cer issues no instructions or provides no additional materials at any party?s
requests to the ARB in any other cases either. The ARB knows our authority and knows the
statute that we work under, without anyone providing us with instructions. We know that we
may review no matters from outside the record and we disregard any attempts to place matters
from outside the record before us.

With the review in this matter pending, the Respondent sent electronic messages to the

Administrative Of?cer for the ARB, on notice to the Petitioner?s counsel, asking that the ARB

 

 

 

conduct investigations into allegations by the Respondent and asking that the Respondent receive
the opportunity to appear before the ARB and argue his case orally. The Administrative Of?cer
responded that the ARB conducts no investigations and that the ARB hears no oral arguments.
Nothing in PHL 230?c authorizes or allows the ARB to conduct investigations and nothing
requires the ARB to conduct de novo hearings or hear oral arguments. -

Due Process and Remand Authority: The Respondent?s brief made many allegations
that the Respondent failed to receive due process and the Respondent asked the ARB to vacate
the revocation order due to those allegations. The ARB holds no authority to vacate a
Committee?s Determination on procedural grounds, but the ARB may remand a matter to a
Committee for further proceedings under PHL 230-c. We considered the Respondent?s due
process complaints as a request for remand to correct any procedural problems. We conclude that
no reason exists for a remand in this case.

The Respondent made allegations with no support in the record about leaks, witness
tampering and false testimony by the Petitioner?s expert. As the Respondent offered no support
for the allegations, we ?nd no grounds on which to consider those allegations. The Respondent
also complained about statements by the Petitioner?s attorney and about the number of charges
the Petitioner brought against the Respondent. We note that the statements by the Petitioner?s
attorney constituted statements by counsel only. We also note that the Committee dismissed a
large number of charges here and that the Committee went into great depth in discussing their
reasons for sustaining and dismissing charges. We ?nd no reason to credit the Respondent?s
allegation that the number of charges prejudiced the Respondent?s defense.

The Respondent also alleged that the Committee came to a decision on the charges before

they heard all sides and that the hearing?s length prejudiced the Respondent?s defense. We ?nd

-7-

 

 

 

no validity in those arguments. The Committee?s Administrative Of?cer, Judge Zimmer, made
clear to the Committee their obligation to hear all sides before rendering a verdict [May 4th
hearing transcript]. Further, the Committee?s Determination demonstrates that the Committee
considered all the evidence in great detail and the Committee gave extensive explanations for
their determination on each charge sustained or denied. As to the hearing?s length, we note that
the Committee conducted twenty days of hearing in this case and the Committee had scheduled
additional days. The hearing ended after twenty days because the Respondent?s counsel stated
that the Respondent had no further proof [Committee Determination page 

The Respondent also argued that he received no chance to present a summary of the
charges in his own words. We see. no validity in that argument. The Respondent received an
extensive opportunity to present a defense, the ReSpondent received the opportunity to address
the Committee during his testimony and both parties received the opportunity to present 
summations in writing, with proposed ?ndings of fact, following the hearing.

The Respondent also complained that the Committee heard from multiple witnesses on
the August 5, 2004 hearing date, when the Respondent was absent due to an emergency illness.
Judge Zimmer refused to adjourn that day, because Nurse 0 traveled from Alaska to testify on
that date. We ?nd no prejudice to the Respondent because the hearing went forward. The
Respondent?s attorney received the chance to cross-examine all witnesses and Judge Zimmer
indicated that the possibility existed that the Respondent could recall witnesses at a later time.
The Respondent?s brief alleged that the Respondent received no chance himself to confront the
witnesses. The Respondent testi?ed, however, that he failed to recall anything about Nurse 0
and that he had no recollection about an incident with Employee J, who also testi?ed on that date

[see Committee Determination page 

.8-

 

 

 

 

The ARB notes that we all served on Hearing Committees prior to becoming ARB
members and we found in reviewing this record that Judge Zimmer did a very good job in
conducting a fair hearing.

Determination on the Charges: In making their Determination that the Respondent
committed professional misconduct, the Committee credited sOme expert testimony by the
Petitioner?s expert, Richard Braen, MD. The Committee found Dr. Braen a credible and
knowledgeable witness, but the Committee noted some disagreement with Dr. Braen?s opinions.
The Committee also credited some expert testimony by the Respondent himself, but noted that
the Respondent tended to put the ?best spin? on events and that the Respondent failed to
understand limits and boundaries of acceptable behavior. The Respondent challenged the
?ndings that the Committee based on the testimony by Dr. Braen, but the Respondent failed to
cite to any speci?c errors or point to any contradictions in the testimony.

The ARB ?nds that the Committee reviewed the expert testimony carefully and they
again gave detailed reasons why they credited some testimony and rejected other testimony. We
defer to the Committee as the ?nder of fact in their judgment about credibility between the
experts. For the same reason, we defer to the Committee in their judgment about which fact
evidence to credit. For the sustained charges involving patients or Staff, Patients A, and F,
Nurse and Employees 1, J, O, and all testi?ed and in some cases other witnesses
corroborated that testimony. In crediting the testimony by these people and sustaining the
charges, the Committee often rejected testimony by the Respondent and some of his witnesses.
The Committee, as the fact-?nder, received the opportunity to view the testimony by all these
witnesses and they were in the best position to judge credibility. As to the charges the Committee

sustained on the Canton?Potsdam Application and the communication to the Board Member and

 

 

 

CEO at The Hospital at Sidney, the Committee based their conclusions on the Application itself
and on the Respondent?s communication. In each case, the Committee could reject the
Respondent?s explanations for his intentions in ?ling the Application and in sending the
communication.

We find no merit to the Respondent?s challenges to the evidence, which the Committee
credited as the basis for those charges the Committee sustained. For example, in challenging the
Findings on Patient F, the Respondent?s brief stated incorrectly that the Committee accepted
unsupported testimony by Patient and disregarded the Respondent?s testimony. In fact, the
charges concerning Patient fell into three categories: F2 and F3. The Committee rejected
all the charges in category F.3. In dismissing those charges, the Committee credited testimony by
the Respondent and rejected testimony by Patient F. As to the charges in F.1 and F2 that the
Committee sustained, the Committee?s Determination cites to corroborating testimbny and
evidence, including some testimony by the Respondent. Following the incident with Patient F,
the Respondent faced criminal charges. In settling those charges, the Respondent made a
statement in court in which he apologized to the Patient and her family and in which the
Respondent admitted to engaging in uninvited, offensive and inappropriate conduct [Committee
Determination, Finding of Fact 83]. The Committee found that apology corroborated the
testimony by Patient F. The Respondent?s brief argued that the Committee took the apology out
of context and that the Respondent made the apology only on recommendatiOn from his lawyer
in the criminal case. The ARB concludes that the Committee acted properly within their role as
fact-?nder in determining the context for the apology and refusing to accept the Respondent?s

attempt to repudiate that apology later on.

.10-

 

 

 

We hold that the evidence that the Committee found credible provided the basis for the
Committee to determine that the Respondent practiced fraudulently, practiced with negligence on
more than one occasion, engaged in conduct that evidenced moral un?tness, practiced medicine
fraudulently, violated PHL 2805?k by failing to provide true and accurate information in
seeking professional privileges from a hospital, willfully ?led a false report, revealed personally
identi?able patient information without patient consent, willfully harassed, abused or intimidated 
patients and failed to maintain accurate patient records.

We reject the Petitioner?s request that we sustain additional charges in this case. Again,
we conclude that the Committee made an extensive and detailed analysis on the evidence in this
case and we af?rm the Committee?s Determination on which charges to sustain and dismiss-

Penalty: The Respondent argued that his misconduct re?ected acceptable behavior in the
Emergency Room at the time the conduct occurred. He admits now to engaging in piggish
behavior and he asserts that he can modify his behavior and comply with monitoring. The ARB
?nds the Respondent?s arguments unconvincing and we af?rm the Committee?s Determination
to revoke the Respondent?s License.

The record demonstrates that the ReSpondent has received warnings and chances to
change his behavior but has failed to heed those warnings or take advantage of those chances.
The Respondent?s brief indicated at page 25 that OPMC conducted a ?rst interview with the
Respondent in 1999. Despite knowing that OPMC was looking into his conduct as of 1999, the
I Respondent continued his pattern of misconduct. The incidents with Patients A and and
Employee all took place after 1999. After the incident with employee I, the Respondent
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with his employer in 1991, in which the Respondent

agreed to examine his practice to ensure his behavior and procedures could not be misperceived I

-11-

 

 

 

as having a sexual implication. The conduct involving Patients A and and Employee all
occurred after the Memorandum of Agreement. In settling the criminal charges concerning the
1998 incident with Patient F, the Respondent agreed to obtain counseling and he made the
apology. The brush with the criminal courts failed to deter the ReSpondent from future
misconduct and at the hearing in this case, the Respondent sought to distance himself from his
apology. The Respondent entered treatment with Dr. Land under the CPH contract in 2001 but
still engaged in the conduct involving Employee in 2002.

The Respondent has engaged in abusive and morally un?t conduct towards patients
almost from the time he received his License and he has continued to engage in that conduct
despite prior warnings, promises to change and a brush with a criminal court. In addition, the
ReSpondent has engaged in additional conduct that shows indifference to his patients and to the
truth. We agree with the Committee that no penalty other than revocation can protect patients.
The ARB concludes that if we allowed the ReSpondent to retain his License, he would repeat his
misconduct in the future. We vote 4?0 to af?rm the Committee?s Determination to revoke the

Respondent?s License.

-12-

 

 

 

ORDER

NOW, with this Determination as our basis, the ARB renders the following ORDER:

1. The ARB af?rms the Committee's Determination that the Respondent committed
professional misconduct.

2. The ARB af?rms the Committee's Determination to revoke the Respondent's License.

Robert M. Briber

Thea Graves Pellman
Datta G. Wagle, MD.
Therese G. MD.

-13-

 

In the Matter of George Michael Inncs. Mg);

curs in the Determination and Order in the

Datta G. Wagle, M.D., an ARB Member con

Matter of Dr. Innes.

Dated: '21 ,2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#Rom :Br i bar

Dr. 

Dated: July 27, 2005

 

 



FRX NO.

CT



    



ael In

Jul.

MD

 

26 2885 @9144?? P1

Robert M. Briber, an ARB Member, concurs in the crmination and Order in the MattFr of

 

 

Robenynriber 

 

 

Jul. 29 2395 182829" P2

FRX ND. 115184822866

Thea Graves Pal lman

in the Matter of Gauge Michael Innes, M.D.

Thea Graves Pellman, an ARB mucus in the Determination and Order in the

Thea Graves 

Matter of Dr. lnnes.

Dated: zoos

 

 

 

-icl-

07/27/05 17:08 

the Matter ofDr. Imes

?ibau?: ?gbg 1r 2:2

 

 

AX 7183879090

Therese G: 

THERE5L anun

ARB?Member mum in .the Determination. and Order in

MG. MJ).