Bock v. Board of Registration in Medicine

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13417
RANDALL BOCK vs. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE.
September 21, 2023.
Board of Registration in Medicine. Doctor, License to practice
medicine. Contempt. Practice, Civil, Contempt, Complaint,
Dismissal.
The petitioner, Randall Bock, appeals from a judgment of
the county court dismissing his complaint, in which he sought an
order holding the Board of Registration in Medicine (board) in
contempt of an order of this court. We affirm.
Bock has been the subject of two disciplinary proceedings
before the board. At the outset of the first proceeding, which
commenced in 2014, his medical license was temporarily
suspended. In 2018, when that proceeding concluded, the only
discipline imposed was a reprimand and a fine; Bock's license
was neither revoked nor finally suspended. By that time, his
license had reached its expiration date. For that reason, under
the regulations in effect at that time, the board did not
immediately reinstate his license, but required him to go
through the process of reviving a lapsed license. Bock
therefore filed a petition in the county court seeking immediate
reinstatement of his license. A single justice of this court
(first single justice) reserved and reported that petition to
the full court. Before the case could be heard by the full
court, the board agreed to reinstate his license, and the
parties entered into a voluntary stipulation of dismissal, as
follows:
The parties, pursuant to Mass. R. [A.] P. 29 (b) (1), [as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1660 (2019),] hereby stipulate to
the Voluntary Dismissal of this action with prejudice. As
2
grounds for this Stipulation, the parties state that the
Respondent-Appellee has agreed to revive the Petitioner-
Appell[ant]'s medical license under the same terms as such
license was issued prior to the Order of Temporary
Suspension dated January 22, 2014, and with a current
renewal date of July 23, 2021.
In accordance with the stipulation, the first single justice
ordered that the petition be dismissed. Not long thereafter,
the board again summarily suspended Bock's license, as the
second disciplinary proceeding had commenced against him. Bock
then filed a motion, in the full court, seeking an order holding
the board in contempt for temporarily suspending his license.
We referred that motion to a second single justice, who denied
it without a hearing. Bock did not appeal from that ruling.
Bock's complaint for civil contempt, seeking essentially
the same relief as his unsuccessful motion, ensued. He alleged
in the complaint that the temporary suspension was in contempt
of the voluntary stipulation of dismissal, which, he claimed,
ripened into an order of this court when the first single
justice dismissed the case. On the board's motion, a different
single justice (third single justice) dismissed the complaint
without a hearing. Bock appeals from this dismissal.
The complaint was properly dismissed. First, we see no
reason why Bock could not have appealed to the full court from
the second single justice's denial of his motion, rather than
initiating a new proceeding. See Linardon v. United States
Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 485 Mass. 1005, 1006 (2020) (appeal
from single justice's denial of motion for contempt). Where the
second single justice had already rejected Bock's motion for
contempt, we will not disturb the third single justice's
dismissal of his complaint seeking the same relief on the same
basis.
Moreover, the allegations in Bock's complaint, even if
true, would not establish that the board disobeyed a "clear and
unequivocal command" of this court. See, e.g., Birchall,
petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 853 (2009). See also Mohamad v.
Kavlakian, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 261, 264 (2007) (determining
whether "complaint for civil contempt was sufficient to
withstand a motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 [b]
[6]"). "[W]e determine whether a party is in contempt by
looking to the precise words of the order itself." Parker v.
Commonwealth, 448 Mass. 1021 (2007), quoting Newell v.
Department of Mental Retardation, 446 Mass. 286, 305, cert.
3
denied, 549 U.S. 823 (2006). Even assuming, without deciding,
that the voluntary stipulation of dismissal became an order of
this court when the first single justice dismissed his petition,
he has identified no clear and unequivocal command that the
board can be said to have disobeyed. The reinstatement of
Bock's license on the terms under which it was issued and with a
given renewal date in no way foreclosed the board from summarily
suspending his license in connection with the new disciplinary
proceedings.1 Simply put, this court did not command the board
to refrain from summarily suspending Bock's license, regardless
of his conduct as a physician. Accordingly, the board did not
disobey any command of this court by doing so. The third single
justice properly dismissed the complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on briefs.
Randall Bock, pro se.
Samuel Furgang, Assistant Attorney General, for the
defendant.
1 Indeed, when the board agreed to reinstate Bock's license,
it expressly reserved the right to continue the new disciplinary
action and to impose a summary suspension.