NOTE 13 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - (Details Narrative) - USD ($)	12 Months Ended			120 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2019	Jun. 30, 2018	Jun. 30, 2017	Dec. 31, 2028
Rent Expense	$ 4,688,000	$ 4,762,000	$ 4,505,000
Property Tax Abatement from Suffolk County IDA (dollars)				$ 440,000
Property Tax Abatement from Suffolk County IDA (%)				50.00%
Employer Contributions to 401(k) Plan	0	0	$ 0
Stipulation agreement with creditors	142,299
Average Monthly Payment for Stipulation Agreements	15,859
Recorded sales tax obligations - principal	1,671,000
Recorded sales tax obligations - interest and penalties	1,054,000
Reserve for Self-Funded Health Insurance Program	68,000	$ 79,000
Stop-Loss Umbrella Policy with 3rd Pary Insurer to Limit Maximum Potential Liability for individual Claims	$ 100,000
2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP)	The stockholders of the Company approved the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (""""ESPP"""") at the Company's annual stockholders' meeting in April 2000. The ESPP provides for eligible employees to acquire common stock of the Company at a discount, not to exceed 15%. This plan has not been put into effect as of June 30, 2019.
Matt Malek Madison
Details of Case	Matt Malek Madison v. Fonar Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, was commenced by plaintiff on August 27, 2007 to recover a down payment for a scanner in the amount of $300,000, with interest. The plaintiff sought costs of suit and attorney's fees as well. The Company answered the complaint and sued the plaintiff for breach of contract in the amount of $450,000. Although down payments are usually expressly non-refundable in the Company's quotations and agreements, in this case, the quotation contemplated the sale of four scanners, and provided that the deposit would be refundable with interest, if the customer were unable to find suitable locations in the San Francisco Bay area. The issue was whether the customer made a good faith effort to find locations; the Company's position was that the customer did not. The case went to trial before a judge; the parties submitted post-trial briefs, and judgment was awarded to the plaintiff. The Company appealed the trial court’s decision, but on January 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision awarding the plaintiff the $300,000 deposit with prejudgment interest from July 1, 2006. The Company sought to have the Court of Appeals reconsider the decision en banc, (by all or a larger number of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals), but this was not granted. During October 2016, the Company settled with the plaintiff for $300,000.
Settlement of Case (value)	$ 300,000