Opinion

Vilbon v. Board of Registration in Nursing

  • 479 Mass. 1015
  • 94 N.E.3d 848
Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Filed
Apr 18, 2018
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.3%

The opinion

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-12359

CARLINE VILBON vs. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN NURSING.

April 18, 2018.

Board of Registration in Nursing. Nurse. License. Moot

Question. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of

inferior courts.

Carline Vilbon appeals from a judgment of the county court

dismissing as moot her appeal under G. L. c. 112, § 64, from an

order of the Board of Registration in Nursing (board)

indefinitely suspending her nursing license. The grounds for

the suspension were that Vilbon had not satisfied the

educational requirements for licensure in Massachusetts and that

she had engaged in deceptive conduct to obtain a license. While

the matter was pending before the single justice, the board

reconsidered and withdrew its finding that Vilbon had engaged in

deceptive conduct, acknowledging that it had erred in making

this finding. In addition, Vilbon remedied the deficiencies in

her education. The board therefore reinstated her license.

Vilbon now argues that, despite the reinstatement of her

license, she has suffered further harm for which the board

should compensate her and that sanctions should be imposed on

the executive director of the board. However, under the "plain

and unambiguous language of G. L. c. 112, § 64," Hoffer v. Board

of Reg. in Medicine, 461 Mass. 451, 456 (2012), our authority is

limited to "revising or reversing the decision of the board"

suspending her license. The statute does not provide for any

further relief. As Vilbon has received all the relief that is

available under G. L. c. 112, § 64, the single justice properly

dismissed the matter as moot. See Padmanabhan v. Centers for

Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 476 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2017), citing

Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000).

Judgment affirmed.

Carline Vilbon, pro se.

Carrie Benedon, Assistant Attorney General, for the

defendant.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.