September 2025
TO: ALL INTERESTED PHYSICIANS
In a recent ruling, as reported in the New York Health Law Journal, the Supreme Court of Schoharie County found that Seventh Amendment Protects a professional’s right to a Civil Jury Trial amid a Disciplinary Action Implicating the Medic’s License.
In this matter, the petitioner was a certified emergency medical technician (EMT) who responded to a call.
The patient, a 63-year-old man had fallen and was unable to get up. As asserted by the New York State Department of Health (DOH), the medic assumed that the patient was faking the extent of their injuries. The medic therefore offered minimal and physically rough assistance and allegedly caused the patient to injure himself further while entering the ambulance.
Upon arriving at the hospital, it was discovered that the patient was seriously ill, The medic – allegedly – attempted to record a conversation with the patient, (without consent), to mitigate potential complaints.
In the aftermath, the patient filed a formal complaint, which triggered a DOH administrative enforcement proceeding seeking civil monetary penalties and revocation of the medic’s EMT certification.
The medic, instead of defending himself in the DOH administrative Hearing, commenced an action in the Supreme Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the proceeding violated his constitutional right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The case centered on two legal issues: (1) whether the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury trial guarantee applies to the states via incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; and (2) whether a professional disciplinary proceeding conducted by a state administrative agency implicating monetary penalties and licensure revocation constitutes the type of proceeding to which the Seventh Amendment applies.
The court noted that the Seventh Amendment is the only provision in the Bill of Rights that has not been explicitly held by the U.S. Supreme Court to apply to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this lack of precedent did not preclude a state court from independently interpreting the federal Constitution. The court went on to write that for a constitutional right to be incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be either: (a) “fundamental to the [Nation’s] scheme of ordered liberty;” or (b) “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
The court took the position that the right to civil jury trials was a foundational element of American law.
Based on the historical record, the court concluded that the civil jury trial right meets the standard for substantive due process protection and, therefore, is incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Having found that the Seventh Amendment applies to the States, the court turned to whether DOH’s enforcement action against the medic fell within the Amendment’s scope.
The DOH’s primary defenses was that the revocation of a professional license is an equitable remedy, and thus not subject to the Seventh Amendment, which applies only to “suits at common law.” The court rejected this argument for several reasons. First, the court reasoned that the presence of an equitable remedy (i.e., license revocation) does not negate the jury trial right where the proceeding also seeks monetary penalties, which are clearly legal in nature. The court emphasized that the nature of the underlying cause of action – allegations of abuse, rough treatment, and dereliction of professional duty – is analogous to common-law tort claims, such as battery or negligence. Accordingly, even if the relief sought is partly equitable, the action remains, at its core, one for which a jury trial would have been required at common law.
Additionally, the court applied a functional test, concluding that, where the proceeding mirrors a traditional legal action and imposes punitive financial consequences, the jury trial right attaches. The court further noted that a professional license is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although equitable in form, the revocation of such a license imposes significant consequences on livelihood and liberty