Posts tagged "Padmanabhan"

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

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 MedicineAdministrative 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. read more

Read more...

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

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Padmanabhan v. Yout (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-090-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12266

BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  KIMBERLEY YOUT.

May 26, 2017.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.

In 2013, the respondent, Kimberley Yout, commenced a product liability action in the Superior Court against Biogen Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, LLC, related to a medication used to treat multiple sclerosis.  She subsequently amended her complaint to include Padmanabhan, a medical doctor, and his company, Scleroplex, Inc., claiming medical malpractice stemming from Padmanabhan’s treatment of her multiple sclerosis with that medication.  Padmanabhan moved to dismiss the claims against both him and, purportedly, Scleroplex, on several bases:  that venue was improper, that service was improper and ineffective, and that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.[1]  The motion was denied.  Padmanabhan then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, which the single justice denied without a hearing. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 26, 2017 at 2:37 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Padmanabhan v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-019-17)

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-12181

BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES.

January 24, 2017.

Practice, Civil, Stay of proceedings, Moot case.  Moot Question.

The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.

In October, 2014, the petitioner commenced an action in the Superior Court, naming as defendants the respondent and certain individuals associated with Cambridge Health Alliance, the city of Cambridge, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and others.  As best as we can discern from the record before us, his complaint alleged claims of, among other things, Medicare or Medicaid fraud, which he became aware of during the course of his employment with some of the defendants; and retaliation by his employer when he spoke up about the perceived fraud.  In March, 2015, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  A judge in that court subsequently allowed a motion to dismiss certain Federal defendants and then remanded the case to the Superior Court.  The petitioner appealed from both the allowance of the motion to dismiss and the remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and that appeal remains pending.  Meanwhile, in the Superior Court, shortly after the remand order, the remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss, which, it appears, the petitioner opposed.  The docket further indicates that on June 7, 2016, a status conference was scheduled for July 19, 2016. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 24, 2017 at 4:00 pm

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