# Hirsch v. New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · June 18, 1992 · 128 N.J. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7324267

## Case

- **Full name:** STUART A. HIRSCH, M.D. THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY AND THE NEW JERSEY SOCIETY OF OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS v. NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** June 18, 1992
- **Citations:** 128 N.J. 160; 607 A.2d 986; 1992 N.J. LEXIS 381
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Affirmance, Clifford, Garibaldi, Handler, Hern, Pollock, Stein, Wilentz
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7324267

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to rule on certain arguments of appellant in part because they first were raised after petition for certification had been granted
- declining to rule on claims first presented by appellant after the petition for certification had been granted
- declining to rule on issue raised for first time after petition for certification was granted
- declining to address a claim presented after the Court granted a petition for certification
- declining to address claim not raised in petition for certification

## Opinion text

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 , 600 A. 2d 493 (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 *162 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.
For affirmance Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
Opposed — none.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7324267. Public record. Not legal advice.