A Worcester-area primary care doctor who prescribed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients has sued the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine in federal court, asking a judge to stop the board from disciplining her. Dr. Tatiana Hamawi’s complaint, filed October 19, 2026, argues that discipline over her use of the two drugs would be viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The board has been investigating her since 2023 and has not filed charges or imposed any discipline.
Here is what the complaint alleges, how board discipline works, and the legal hurdles a federal suit like this one faces. The complaint’s statements are allegations, and the board has not yet responded in court.
The lawsuit
The case is Hamawi v. Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, No. 4:26-cv-14741, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It was filed in Boston and assigned to the Worcester division, according to the federal docket. It names the board’s members in their official capacities and brings one count under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for “Viewpoint Discrimination under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
According to the complaint:
- Hamawi has been licensed in Massachusetts since 1997 and runs a solo primary care practice she started in 2002.
- She began prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 “in late December 2020” and added hydroxychloroquine in 2022. Neither drug is FDA-approved to treat COVID-19.
- In August 2023 she prescribed both drugs to a patient with COVID-19 who later developed a body-wide rash and was hospitalized. The complaint says hospital dermatologists ultimately attributed the rash to a different medication the patient was taking. The patient’s pulmonologist filed a complaint with the board.
- The board notified her of the complaint in September 2023 and subpoenaed records, docketed the matter for investigation in May 2024 as BORIM Docket No. 23-570, and later requested information on every patient to whom she had prescribed the two drugs, plus records for six more patients.
- On October 8, 2026, the board’s Complaint Committee met to discuss her case. Her lawyer told the committee the First Amendment barred it from proceeding. The complaint says a board member indicated the board “nevertheless intends to adjudicate the complaint.”
- Since learning of the complaint, she says, she has been afraid to recommend the drugs for COVID-19, and would otherwise have kept doing so.
The complaint frames the dispute in partisan terms. It says Republican administrations “embraced” the two drugs while Democratic officials preferred other treatments, and that the board “acted intentionally on a preference for the Democrat Massachusetts governor and Democrat physicians’ viewpoint.” It also alleges the doctor who filed the board complaint is a critic of President Trump. It asks the court to declare her rights violated, to bar the board from “continuing to investigate or adjudicate” the docket or any matter based on her use of the drugs for COVID-19, and to award attorney’s fees. It demands a jury trial. Universal Hub first reported the suit.
How medical board discipline works in Massachusetts
- Investigation. Under G.L. c. 112, § 5, the board “shall investigate all complaints relating to the proper practice of medicine” by a licensed physician.
- Grounds. The board may discipline a physician who “is guilty of conduct which places into question the physician’s competence to practice medicine, including but not limited to gross misconduct in the practice of medicine or of practicing medicine fraudulently, or beyond its authorized scope, or with gross incompetence, or with gross negligence on a particular occasion or negligence on repeated occasions.”
- Hearing first. Discipline comes only “after a hearing pursuant to chapter thirty A,” the state Administrative Procedure Act. Sanctions range from reprimand, censure and fines of up to $10,000 per classification of violation, to suspension or revocation.
- Court review. A physician may appeal a final board decision under G.L. c. 30A, § 14, as the complaint itself notes.
Nothing in the complaint says the board has issued a formal statement of allegations. Its Complaint Committee has discussed the matter, and the investigation is ongoing.
The legal hurdles
Abstention. Federal courts usually decline to interfere with certain pending state proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), the Supreme Court limited that doctrine to three “exceptional” categories, including “civil enforcement proceedings” that are “akin to a criminal prosecution” in important respects. It pointed to Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982), a lawyer discipline case, as an example, noting that there an “investigation and formal complaint preceded the hearing” and the purpose was to decide whether the lawyer “should be disciplined for his failure to meet the State’s standards of professional conduct.” The First Circuit applied that framework to a Massachusetts agency in Sirva Relocation, LLC v. Richie, 794 F.3d 185 (1st Cir. 2015), and abstained. A physician discipline case fits the same mold, but whether a board investigation is far enough along to count as a pending proceeding is a question the court may have to decide.
Speech or conduct. The complaint treats prescribing and recommending the drugs as protected expression. In National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), the Supreme Court declined to treat “professional speech” as a lesser category of speech, but recognized that states may “regulate professional conduct that incidentally involves speech.” How the court classifies writing a prescription, as conduct the state may regulate or as speech, would be central if the case reaches the merits.
Viewpoint discrimination. The complaint’s theory is that the board is treating doctors differently based on the view behind their treatment choices. It points to what it says is the board’s failure to discipline physicians who used other COVID-19 treatments, and the fact that the board did not question her prescribing ivermectin for scabies. Proving that the board acted because of a viewpoint, rather than a standard-of-care concern about off-label prescribing, would be her burden.
What happens next
The board will have a chance to respond in court. The board’s investigation is not paused by the filing unless a judge orders it. No discipline has been imposed, and the board has made no findings against Hamawi.
Frequently asked questions
Is Dr. Tatiana Hamawi being disciplined?
Not yet. According to her complaint, the Board of Registration in Medicine has been investigating since 2023 and its Complaint Committee discussed the matter on October 8, 2026. Discipline can only be imposed after a hearing under G.L. c. 30A, and no findings have been made.
Can a Massachusetts doctor prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19?
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for other uses, and doctors may prescribe approved drugs off-label. The board can discipline a physician for conduct that calls competence into question, including gross negligence or repeated negligence, under G.L. c. 112, § 5. Whether particular prescribing meets that standard is decided case by case.
What does the lawsuit ask for?
A declaration that the board violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, an injunction barring the board from continuing to investigate or adjudicate the complaint based on her use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, and attorney’s fees.
Can a federal court stop a state medical board investigation?
Rarely. Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts generally will not interfere with pending state enforcement proceedings, such as professional discipline, if the person can raise constitutional claims there. Whether the doctrine applies depends in part on how far the state proceeding has progressed.
Sources: Complaint, Hamawi v. Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, No. 4:26-cv-14741 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 19, 2026), read in full; CourtListener docket; Universal Hub, Oct. 20, 2026. G.L. c. 112, § 5 read at malegislature.gov. Younger, Sprint, Middlesex, NIFLA and Sirva confirmed on CourtListener. The complaint’s statements are allegations. General information, not legal advice.