State review board upholds revocation of psychiatrist Reed C. Moskowitz's license for sex with patients, fraud

September 17, 2009

On September 17, 2009, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) of the New York Board for Professional Medical Conduct affirmed the Board’s February 20, 2009 decision to revoke the license of psychiatrist Reed C. Moskowitz.

Moskowitz, who at the time was a clinical assistant professor at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, was found guilty by the Board of engaging in physical contact of a sexual nature with a patient; negligence on more than one occasion; gross negligence; moral unfitness; abusing a patient and fraud in the practice of medicine.

Specifically, the Board’s document states that Moskowitz engaged in sexual contact with a female patient during the course of treatment, which included hugs, kisses, fondling, sexual intercourse and oral sex; he’d engaged in sexual contact with a second female patient during the course of treatment, which included hugging, kissing, fondling and sexual intercourse. Moskowitz impregnated one of the women and then paid for her to have an abortion.

During the State’s hearing in the matter, the hearing Committee heard testimony from both former patients, whose testimony was deemed credible:  One of the women described “the couch in Moskowitz’s office and that it opened up into a bed; that Moskowitz asked her to get fitted for a diaphragm; how the closet light was left on with the door slightly ajar and Moskowitz’s complaining about her make-up staining his shirt.”  The other woman’s testimony included detailed accounts of how Moskowitz “asked her to get tested for HIV; an awkward incident where they inadvertently met friends of Moskowitz’s in a movie queue; a description of Moskowitz’s house; her pregnancy and Moskowitz paying for her abortion.”

“[Moskowitz] abused his position of trust and authority, using the intimate knowledge provided to him by Patients A and B for his own gain and pleasure,” the hearing committee concluded.

The document states that, “Both witnesses were more believable” than Moskowitz, who “introduced evidence relating to the physical characteristics of his penis, specifically that he had a melanosis, [a condition] which causes areas of his penis to have a dark pigmentation,” which neither former patient noted in their testimony.  Further, the hearing committee found Moskowitz’s at times “to be evasive or not forthright in his answers.  When asked if always jogged at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day, he answered “no.”  But when asked when he did jog, he answered at the beginning or end of the day.”

Additionally, the Board found that he knowingly committed fraud in the practice of medicine: On both June 24, 2005 and May 31, 2007, Moskowitz submitted applications for hospital credentialing to NYU Hospital Center in which he answered “no” to the question regarding any pending investigation against him.  The committee concluded that in both instances, he knowingly submitted false information (at the time these applications were submitted, Moskowitz knew he was under investigation by the NYU Office of Professional Medical Conduct).

Lastly, in the course of the hearing, Moskowitz submitted in evidence copies of two separate applications for medical malpractice insurance (one for 2006, the other for 2007), purportedly to support his claim that his “no” answers on the NYU credentialing applications were oversights and not deliberate false submissions.  On both the malpractice insurance applications, Moskowitz answered “yes” to question of whether he was the subject of an investigation by a government agency and whether he was aware of an incident which may give rise to a suit.  On both applications, to the left of the question, there are two pre-printed boxes labeled “yes” and “no.”  On the 2006 application, the “no” box and the word “no” was initially either completely crossed out or “whited out” and then re-written in the application by hand.  The Department then submitted in evidence a copy of the relevant page of the same 2006 application that it had obtained and it was shown that the Department’s version differed from what Moskowitz had presented: both the pre-printed “no” check-off box and the word “no” are completely blacked out and were not rewritten.  When questioned about the discrepancy, he testified under oath that he had not altered his version of the application.  The committee found his answer incredible and that his intent was to deceive the Board.

The ARB reviewed Moskowitz’s request to nullify the revocation determination and have the case remanded (sent back for further deliberation, consideration, review) on the basis of, among other things, alleged bias against him by the committee.

The ARB affirmed the committee’s Determination that Moskowitz committed professional misconduct and its Determination to revoke his license.

(Administrative Review Board Determination and Order No. 09-21, In the Matter of Reed Craig Moskowitz, M.D., State of New York Department of Health Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct, September 17, 2009 and Determination and Order in the Matter of Reed Craig Moskowitz, M.D., BPMC #09-21, State of New York Department of Health Board for Professional Medical Conduct, February 11, 2009.)


No comments.

Post your own comment here:

Your Comment