Scheffler v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-113-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 12‑P‑1616 Appeals Court THOMAS SCHEFFLER vs. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS. No. 12‑P‑1616. September 16, 2013. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds. Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Motor Vehicle, Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds, Operating under the influence. The plaintiff, Thomas Scheffler, appeals from a decision by a judge of the Superior Court allowing the motion of the defendant, the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board), for judgment on the pleadings. The board’s decision affirmed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ (registrar) determination that the plaintiff’s assignment, in Connecticut, to a pretrial alcohol education program following his arrest in that State on what amounts to operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) was a “like offense” within the meaning of G. L. c. 90, § 24, and that the Connecticut offense should be added to the plaintiff’s driving history.[1] 1. Background. On April 24, 2009, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of liquor, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a (2013).[2] Following the plaintiff’s successful completion of a pretrial alcohol education diversion program, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56g (2013), the Connecticut charge was dismissed. However, Connecticut suspended the plaintiff’s license for six months as a result of his refusal to comply with a breathalyzer test. On June 18, 2009, the plaintiff received notification from the registrar that his license would be suspended, beginning July 18, 2009, for one year based on the Connecticut OUI charge. Later, the registrar learned that the plaintiff’s license was suspended in Connecticut for the breathalyzer refusal and not OUI. However, the plaintiff’s Massachusetts driving record reflects the Connecticut incident for both the breathalyzer refusal and the OUI dismissal, as well as his successful completion of the alcohol education program. The plaintiff appealed to the board, and on December 28, 2010, the board upheld the registrar’s decision to add the Connecticut incident to the plaintiff’s driving history. A Superior Court judge affirmed the board’s decision, concluding that the registrar’s actions were proper. 2. Discussion. Our review does not “extend to examining the weight of the evidence to determine whether the Superior Court’s decision — either upon its own findings of […]