Hoffer v. Board of Registration in Medicine
461 Mass. 451
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Board alleged Hoffer’s medical ability impaired by mental instability and suspended her license temporarily on August 10, 1992.
- Hoffer initially contested the suspension, but the suspension was sustained after a hearing before the chief administrative magistrate.
- Hoffer entered a 1996 stipulation staying the suspension conditioned on treatment and monitoring.
- In 2001, Hoffer entered a probation agreement allowing return with monitoring by Physician Health Services (PHS).
- In 2004, PHS notified the board of Hoffer’s failure to continue treatment, prompting the board to consider immediate suspension or a lesser sanction and vacating the stay on March 3, 2004.
- Hoffer challenged the 2004 order in 2005, pursued review in county court in 2005 and 2009 petitions for reinstatement were denied, leading to the current certiorari challenge to the 2009 denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2009 board denial reviewable under G. L. c. 112, § 64? | Hoffer contends § 64 provides review of suspended licenses. | Board argues § 64 does not apply to a denial of reinstatement after suspension; the license is already suspended. | No; § 64 does not govern reinstate-after-suspension actions. |
| Is review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 available for the 2009 denial? | Hoffer argues § 14 applies as adjudicatory review. | Board maintains no adjudicatory proceeding occurred for reinstatement petition. | No; the action is not an adjudicatory proceeding under § 14. |
| Is certiorari under G. L. c. 249, § 4 available for review of the 2009 denial? | Hoffer seeks certiorari relief for quasi-judicial error. | Board disputes availability of certiorari for this context. | Yes; certiorari is available for review of the board’s denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest standard for due process)
- Haran v. Board of Registration in Med., 398 Mass. 571 (Mass. 1986) (board discretion in professional regulation)
- Sugar-man v. Board of Registration in Med., 422 Mass. 338 (Mass. 1996) (board expertise in sanction decisions)
- Madera v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Communities & Dev., 418 Mass. 452 (Mass. 1994) (distinguishes discretionary benefits from entitlement)
- Roslindale Motor Sales, Inc. v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 405 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1989) (no entitlement to license to sell used cars; discretionary licensing)
- Welch v. Paicos, 66 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D. Mass. 1999) (procedural due process distinctions in discretionary licensing)
- Indeck v. Clients’ Sec. Bd., 450 Mass. 379 (Mass. 2008) (three-part test for certiorari adequacy and remedy)
- Spath v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 728 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1984) (due process and property interest discussion cited in Roth context)