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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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.