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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 […]
Categories: News Tags: 1011117, Board, Lawyers, Medicine, Padmanabhan, Registration, Weekly
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. Because the trial court ruling from which Padmanabhan seeks relief — the denial of his motion to dismiss — is interlocutory, Padmanabhan’s appeal to this court is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule requires an appellant to file a preliminary memorandum and appendix showing that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Padmanabhan has not done so. Instead of filing a preliminary memorandum under the rule, he filed instead a full appellate brief. This failure to comply with the rule defeats the purpose of the rule and is basis alone for us to decline to disturb the single justice’s judgment. Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).[2] More importantly, even in his brief he has not made a showing why review of the denial of his motion to dismiss cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court; he has not, in fact, even addressed the issue. This court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not a shortcut for the normal process of trial and appeal. See Foley v. Lowell Div. of […]
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. On July 11, 2016, the petitioner filed an “emergency motion to stay improper proceedings in State court” in the county court, which the single justice treated as a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He argued that the State court lacked jurisdiction because his appeal from the remand order remained pending in the Federal court, and he asked this court to stay further proceedings in the Superior Court. He also asked the court to order that the status conference scheduled for July 19, 2016, be canceled. While his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition was pending, the July 19, 2016, status conference proceeded as scheduled. A docket entry dated July 20, 2016, indicates that because the petitioner’s appeal to the First Circuit remained pending, the status conference would be continued to October […]