Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hirsch v. New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: June 18, 1992.

STUART A. HIRSCH, M.D.; THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY; AND THE NEW JERSEY SOCIETY OF OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 252 N.J. Super. 596 (1991).

Chief Justice Wilentz and Justices Clifford, Handler, Pollock, O'Hern, Garibaldi, and Stein join in this opinion.

Per Curiam

Per Curiam

The Appellate Division rejected plaintiffs' facial challenges to the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners' questionnaire that the Board had made part of New Jersey physicians' and podiatrists' biennial license-renewal application. We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Coleman's comprehensive opinion. See Hirsch v. New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners, 252 N.J. Super. 596 (1991). Although some of the questions on the application could benefit from reformulation to achieve a better-defined focus and to reflect a more sensitive appreciation of the privacy concerns of those who must answer, we cannot say that on this record there has been a clear demonstration of unreasonableness. We add, however, that our ruling on the facial validity of the questions should not be interpreted as an absolute bar to later consideration of a particularized claim of damage or injury by an aggrieved license-renewal applicant.

We decline to rule on so much of plaintiffs' claims as is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213, plaintiffs having first presented those claims after their petition for certification had been granted. Moreover, we are uncertain that this Court has jurisdiction over ADA-based claims if, as here, the individual plaintiffs have not first filed those claims with the Department of Justice, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.170(c), 35.171(a)(2), 35.190(b)(6) (1991); but in that respect as well we defer a definitive ruling until presented with an appeal in which the ADA issues have been fully developed.

Judgment affirmed.

Chief Just(ice Wilentz and Justices Clifford, Handler, Pollock, O'Hern, Garibaldi, and Stein join in this opinion.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

19920618


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.