Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Vilbon v. Board of Registration in Nursing (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-065-18)

Posted on April 18, 2018

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12359

 

CARLINE VILBON  vs.  BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN NURSING.

 

 

April 18, 2018.

 

 

Board of Registration in Nursing.  Nurse.  License.  Moot Question.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

 

 

Carline Vilbon appeals from a judgment of the county court dismissing as moot her appeal under G. L. c. 112, § 64, from an order of the Board of Registration in Nursing (board) indefinitely suspending her nursing license.  The grounds for the suspension were that Vilbon had not satisfied the educational requirements for licensure in Massachusetts and that she had engaged in deceptive conduct to obtain a license.  While the matter was pending before the single justice, the board reconsidered and withdrew its finding that Vilbon had engaged in deceptive conduct, acknowledging that it had erred in making this finding.  In addition, Vilbon remedied the deficiencies in her education.  The board therefore reinstated her license.  Vilbon now argues that, despite the reinstatement of her license, she has suffered further harm for which the board should compensate her and that sanctions should be imposed on the executive director of the board.  However, under the “plain and unambiguous language of G. L. c. 112, § 64,” Hoffer v. Board of Reg. in Medicine, 461 Mass. 451, 456 (2012), our authority is limited to “revising or reversing the decision of the board” suspending her license.  The statute does not provide for any further relief.  As Vilbon has received all the relief that is available under G. L. c. 112, § 64, the single justice properly dismissed the matter as moot.  See Padmanabhan v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 476 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2017), citing Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000).

 

Judgment affirmed.

 

 

Carline Vilbon, pro se.

Carrie Benedon, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

 

Full-text Opinions

Recent Posts

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA – Summary
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER.
  • Commonwealth v. Palmer (AC 24-P-365) COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER – SUMMARY
  • Hello world!

Recent Comments

  1. กิฟฟารีน on Commonwealth v. Gomes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-075-13)
  2. กิฟฟารีน on Town of Athol v. Professional Firefighters of Athol, Local 1751, I.A.F.F. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-174-14)
  3. อาหารเสริม on Scores Injured by Explosion at Boston Marathon Finish Line
  4. Giffarine on Adult Chorus in South End!
  5. กิฟฟารีน on Bowers v. P. Wile’s, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-049-15)
©2025 Massachusetts Legal Resources | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme

Powered by
...
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by