Posts tagged "Medicine"

Padmanabhan v. Board of Registration in Medicine, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-111-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12119   BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE & another.[1]     June 27, 2017.     Board of Registration in Medicine.  Administrative Law, Decision.   The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of the county court dismissing his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  On May 18, 2017, we issued an order affirming the single justice’s judgment and indicated that this opinion would follow.   In 2010, Padmanabhan, a medical doctor, was terminated from his position at Cambridge Health Alliance, a termination that he alleges was based on false claims that he harmed patients and in retaliation for certain actions that he took, including reporting purported insurance fraud.  Subsequent to his termination, the Board of Registration in Medicine (board) commenced disciplinary proceedings against him, and referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA).[2]  Following an evidentiary hearing that spanned eight days, the DALA magistrate issued his recommended decision in August, 2015.  The board subsequently remanded the case to the magistrate, in January, 2016, asking the magistrate to elaborate on certain parts of his decision and, among other things, to include credibility determinations and clarify certain inconsistencies in the decision.  In March, 2016, the magistrate issued an order indicating that he was preparing a revised recommended decision for the board in response to the remand order.   Shortly thereafter, Padmanabhan filed a “Renewed Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” in the county court.  In the petition he argued that his due process rights had been violated in various ways during the course of the board proceedings.  He also argued that the recommended decision issued by the magistrate in August, 2015, became final in February, 2016, pursuant to 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01(11)(c)(3) (1998), and that his petition thus did not stem from, or seek relief from, an interlocutory ruling but rather what was, in effect, a final decision of the board.  The board moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that the proceedings before it had not yet concluded and that it had not yet issued a final decision.  The single justice dismissed the petition without a hearing.[3]   In his appeal, Padmanabhan continues to argue that the magistrate’s recommended decision became the board’s final decision pursuant to 801 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 27, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Langan v. Board of Registration in Medicine (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-103-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12242   MICHAEL L. LANGAN  vs.  BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE.     June 13, 2017.     Board of Registration in Medicine.  Doctor, License to practice medicine.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari.     Michael L. Langan appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari from a decision of the Board of Registration in Medicine (board).  We affirm.   Background.  Langan is a board-certified physician in geriatrics and internal medicine.  In 2008, after he had tested positive for various controlled substances, he and the board entered into a letter of agreement, under which he agreed to certain conditions in order to continue practicing medicine, including refraining from the use of alcohol and controlled substances without a prescription and submitting to substance use monitoring by Massachusetts Physician Health Services (PHS).  The letter of agreement provided that violating its terms would “constitute sufficient grounds for the immediate suspension of [Langan’s] license,” and that Langan had a right to an adjudicatory hearing as to any violation found by the board.   After Langan entered into the letter of agreement, PHS reported three positive tests, at low levels, for ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS), two alcohol biomarkers.  The board took no action at that time.  In June and July, 2011, however, Langan tested positive for the same biomarkers, at higher levels.[1]  As a result of these positive tests, PHS requested that Langan undergo an inpatient evaluation, and the board asked him to enter into a voluntary agreement not to practice pending completion of such an evaluation.  Langan refused at first, causing the board to find him in violation of the letter of agreement.  Langan then underwent the inpatient evaluation in September, 2011.   On February 1, 2012, Langan, represented by counsel, signed an addendum to his letter of agreement requiring, in particular, that he “participate in a minimum of three (3) 12-step meetings per week” and “submit proof of said participation to PHS.”  In October, 2012, PHS reported that Langan had misrepresented attending meetings.  In November, 2012, Langan again tested positive for EtS and EtG.  Langan entered into a voluntary agreement not to practice and was asked to produce documentation that he had attended all required meetings.  He did not do so, and in February, 2013, the board determined, based […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 13, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Middlesex Integrative Medicine, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-180-16)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2014-2727-BLS1 MIDDLESEX INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, INC. vs. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The plaintiff, Middlesex Integrative Medicine, Inc. (MIM), filed this action in the nature of certiorari under G. L. c. 249, § 4 against the defendant, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (Department), after the Department denied each of MIM’s three applications to operate Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMDs) in Massachusetts. MIM and the Department have each moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c). On November 21, 2016, this court held a hearing on the motions. For the reasons stated below, MIM’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED and the Department’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is ALLOWED. BACKGROUND In November, 2012, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot initiative allowing for the medical use of marijuana for qualifying patients. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted Chapter 369 of the Acts of 2012, known as “An Act for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana” (Act). St. 2012, c. 369. The Act authorized the Department to register at least one, and up to five, RMDs in each Massachusetts county, up to a total of 35 statewide, during the first year after the law’s effective date (January 1, 2013). G. L. c. 94C, App. § 1-9. Pursuant to the Act, the Department promulgated regulations (105 Code Mass. Regs. § 725.001 et seq.) which established, among other things, a two phase application process. In Phase 1, the applicant paid a non-refundable fee and submitted basic information that was reviewed by the Department. See 105 Code Mass. Regs. § 725.100(B)(1). If the applicant submitted all of the required information in a timely fashion, the applicant was notified that it could proceed to Phase 2. See id. at § 725.100(B)(2). In this phase, the applicant paid a nonrefundable $ 30,000 fee and submitted an application containing much more detailed information about its proposed dispensary, after which the Department evaluated and scored the application. See id. at § 725.100(B)(3)-(5). MIM sought to operate three RMDs – one in Middlesex County (Everett), one in Norfolk County (Norwood), and one in Worcester County (Shrewsbury). In August 2013, MIM filed a a Phase 1 application for each location and, along with other applicants, MIM was invited by the Department to submit Phase 2 applications. On November 21, 2013, MIM paid the Department $ 90,000 and filed three Phase 2 applications. Out of a possible 163 points, MIM received scores of 118, 127, and 118 on its three applications. On January 31, 2014, the Department announced the selection of 20 applicants to receive […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 5, 2017 at 10:28 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Preventive Medicine Associates, Inc., et al. v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-130-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11252   PREVENTIVE MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC., & another[1]  vs.  COMMONWEALTH.       Suffolk.     March 7, 2013.  ‑  July 15, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Electronic Mail.  Privileged Communication.  Search and Seizure, Warrant.  Practice, Criminal, Warrant, Assistance of counsel, Subpoena.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Assistance of counsel.  Rules of Criminal Procedure.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on June 13, 2012.   The case was reported by Spina, J.     Timothy E. Maguire for the plaintiffs. Thomas E. Bocian, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.       BOTSFORD, J.  This case concerns the search by the Commonwealth of electronic mail messages (e-mails) of a criminal defendant after he has been indicted.  Because the e-mails sought by the Commonwealth are intermingled with many other e-mails that are likely to be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the case concerns more particularly the intersection between search and seizure law and that privilege. The issue arises in the following context.  On behalf of the Commonwealth, the Attorney General sought, and a grand jury returned, indictments charging the defendants, Preventive Medicine Associates, Inc. (PMA), and Punyamurtula Kishore, with Medicaid fraud in violation of G. L. c. 118E, §§ 40 and 41.[2]  Thereafter, on two different occasions, the Commonwealth applied for and obtained search warrants to obtain and search designated e-mail accounts of Kishore and of PMA’s former billing director, Cheryl Church; both e-mail accounts were with Google, Inc. (Google), which stored the e-mails on its own server.  On learning that the Commonwealth had begun reviewing Kishore’s e-mails pursuant to the warrants, the defendants moved for a protective order, claiming that the attorney-client privilege protected many of those e-mails.   After several hearings, on June 4, 2012, a judge in the Superior Court (motion judge) entered an amended order permitting the Commonwealth to search the e-mails by using a so-called “taint team” comprised of assistant attorneys general not involved in the investigation or prosecution of the defendants.  The defendants filed a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court, seeking relief from the motion judge’s order.  The single justice stayed the motion judge’s order and reserved and reported the following questions to the full court: “(1) Whether the Commonwealth may, by means of an ex parte […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 15, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,