RATIFICATION OF MINUTES

1 OPEN MINUTES - NJ STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSDISCIPLINARY MATTERS PENDING CONCLUSION - March 11, 2015A meeting of the New Jersey State Board of Medical examiners was held on wednesday ,March 11, 2015 at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, 4 FloorthConference Center, Trenton, New Jersey for Disciplinary Matters Pending Conclusion,open to the public. The meeting was called to order by Karen Criss, , BoardVice Members Angrist, Stewart Berkowitz, Cheema, Criss, DeLuca,Kubiel, Lopez, Metzger, Miksad, Miller, Rao, Rock, Scott and Shah.

2 EXCUSEDB oard Members, Steven Berkowitz,, Maffei, McGrath and PRESENTS enior Deputy Attorneys General Dick, Flanzman and Gelber, DeputyAttorneys General Hafner and Puteska, William V. Roeder, ExecutiveDirector of the Medical Board, Sindy Paul, , Medical Director andHarry Lessig, , Consultant Medical OF MINUTESWITH NO CORRECTIONS OR AMENDMENTS, THEOPEN DISCIPLINE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 2015 WERE APPROVED AFTER A MOTION BY DR. ANGRISTAND SECOND BY DR. CHEEMA. III. HEARINGS, PLEAS AND APPEARANCE10:00 AMLA FON, Michael, , 25MA04535900 David G. Evans, Esq.

3 , for RespondentBindi Merchant, DAG for ProsecutionSteven Flanzman, SDAG for Counseling OPEN MINUTES - NJ STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSDISCIPLINARY MATTERS PENDING CONCLUSION - March 11, 2015 The Attorney General filed a Verified Complaint on or aboutFebruary 28, 2015 and Respondent filed an Answer on or aboutFebruary 27, 2015. Most of the facts alleged in the VerifiedComplaint were not in dispute upon Respondent s filing of hisAnswer, however, there were limited facts as contained inParagraphs 11-13, 15-17, and 19-23 that were not admitted. TheBoard conducted a limited liability hearing on those paragraphsand voted that discipline should be imposed and therefore, it immediately conducted a mitigation hearing to determine theappropriate sanction, if Motion was made and seconded to move into closed session foradvice of counsel.

4 The Motion was made by Dr. Metzger, seconded byDr. Shah, carried unanimously. All parties, except counseling andadministrative staff, left the room. Once returning to Open Session,the hearing began. Vice President of the Board Karen Criss opened the hearing by askingthe parties to place their appearances on the record and remindedthem that the Board was convened to hear the matter of Dr. LaFon. She further clarified that the Board would conduct the hearing in abifurcated fashion beginning with the hearing on the issue of liability,then, if it was determined that cause existed to assess a sanctionand/or penalty, the Board would move immediately into themitigation phase of the Bindi Merchant addressed the Board noting that in the Answer,the respondent, Dr.

5 LaFon admitted to most, if not all of theallegations. On those issues not admitted, she argued that theevidence would demonstrate that Dr. LaFon violated the Board sOrder which required him to have a chaperone present during allexaminations and encounters with patients. Previously, therespondent was restored conditionally and she emphasized that theconditions were to treat only male patients and to have a chaperoneOPEN MINUTES - NJ STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSDISCIPLINARY MATTERS PENDING CONCLUSION - March 11, 2015accompany and be present during all physician/patient visits.

6 DAGM erchant told the Board she intended to present evidence that wouldalso show a blatant disregard for the conditional reinstatement theBoard granted and, she continued, that the undercover investigationdemonstrated on at least four occasions no chaperone was Attorney General also alleged that DEA inspectors uncovered thatDr. LaFon was pre-filling medical records with pertinent information,like blood pressure, weight, physical diagnosis and potentialtreatment, prior to seeing Evans, attorney for Dr. Lafon, addressed the Board and informedthem that his main witness was his client, Dr.

7 LaFon, and that histestimony would address his intent. Mr. Evans explained to the Boardthat his client admited to not having a chaperone present in the room,but his testimony will demonstrate his reasoning and what his intentwas at the time. It was also posited that his intent concerning thepre-filing of medical records was in no way malicious or Evans explained to the Board that since there was no third partyinvolved, there could not have been an intent to deceive patients or theBoard. Mr. Evans also argued that the Order was vague inasmuch asthe word accompany was not Deputy Attorney General presented her case in chief, which waspreviously provided to the Board through the Exhibits attached to herpapers and she presented a copy to the Court Reporter for marking.

8 As a matter of patient privacy, she also noted that P-3 had beenredacted to remove the patient names and after hearing no objectionfrom the Respondent, P-1 through P-4 were accepted into Evans introduced into evidence the eleven exhibits presented inhis responsive papers and the Attorney General did not object. DAGM erchant did object, however, to Dr. Deerfield s statements as itrelated to her opinion as to the intent of the Board when it drafted theOrder; Mr. Evans agreed. The exhibits were admitted into MINUTES - NJ STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSDISCIPLINARY MATTERS PENDING CONCLUSION - March 11, 2015Mr.

9 Evans called Dr. LaFon. The doctor testified that after his licensewas reinstated, he started working with a doctor with a practicefocused primarily around addiction. After about a year, he petitionedto go on his own and it was granted by the Board. He understood thathe was able to have his own practice under certain conditions. At thistime, he was in a recovery program as directed by the PAP and he hasbeen fully compliant with those conditions of the Order; the PAP hasreported that compliance to the Board. According to Dr. LaFon, he hadto slowly build his practice.

10 Since he was ineligible to participate inany facility or insurance carrier, he was left to only have cash payingmale patients and he had to work hard to try and make a living. altered his services to attempt to build a practice and met with anumber of physicians seeking referrals for those patients which theywere unable to treat, even to the point of only charging $20 a patientper visit. He also expanded his practice to being able to prescribeSuboxone. In his words, he believed he was developing a medicalpractice ahead of its time. His office became a new kind of doctor soffice, more like the atmosphere that of a barber shop and his patientsdeveloped a comradery among themselves.