
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


On this episode we dive into an excerpt from a New York State Appellate Division decision in the case Matter of Weiner v New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, which was decided on October 16, 2025. As a reminder Dr. Weiner is the co-owner of Allboro Medical, a facility that has alleged ties to Russian organized crime and MS-13. However, we are focusing on the proceeding initiated by doctor Kevin Weiner, challenging the determination of a Hearing Committee that suspended his medical license for two years due to sustained charges of professional medical misconduct. Weiner's central argument was that the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) failed to satisfy a "condition precedent" under Public Health Law § 230, arguing he was not properly informed of all issues under investigation before his required pre-charge interview.
The court ultimately confirmed the Hearing Committee's determination and dismissed Weiner's petition, ruling that the purpose of the law was to expedite the disciplinary process and that Weiner was afforded sufficient notice of the broader issues, including his alleged failure to properly render diagnoses.
Support the show
By iFraud FoundationOn this episode we dive into an excerpt from a New York State Appellate Division decision in the case Matter of Weiner v New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, which was decided on October 16, 2025. As a reminder Dr. Weiner is the co-owner of Allboro Medical, a facility that has alleged ties to Russian organized crime and MS-13. However, we are focusing on the proceeding initiated by doctor Kevin Weiner, challenging the determination of a Hearing Committee that suspended his medical license for two years due to sustained charges of professional medical misconduct. Weiner's central argument was that the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) failed to satisfy a "condition precedent" under Public Health Law § 230, arguing he was not properly informed of all issues under investigation before his required pre-charge interview.
The court ultimately confirmed the Hearing Committee's determination and dismissed Weiner's petition, ruling that the purpose of the law was to expedite the disciplinary process and that Weiner was afforded sufficient notice of the broader issues, including his alleged failure to properly render diagnoses.
Support the show