Hellman v. Board of Registration in Medicine
Decision Date | 03 May 1989 |
Parties | Samuel HELLMAN v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jane S. Schacter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Weymouth Heights, for plaintiff.
Present WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The Board of Registration in Medicine (board) appeals from a determination by a single justice of this court that the board's decision to discipline Dr. Samuel Hellman for "gross misconduct" in the practice of medicine was not supported by substantial evidence. See G.L. c. 30A, § 14. The board imposed sanctions on Dr. Hellman for a conversation he had with an attorney concerning the care and treatment of L.E. (patient). See G.L. c. 112, § 5(c ), as appearing in St.1981, c. 639, and 243 Code Mass.Regs. § 1.03(5)(a)(3), as appearing in 1980. 1 For the reasons stated in this opinion we affirm the decision of the single justice.
Dr. Hellman treated the patient for paraganglioma from February or March, 1981, through early summer, 1982. Dr. Hellman was then chief of radiation therapy at Brigham and Women's Hospital and director of the Harvard Joint Center for Radiation Therapy. Prior to consulting with Dr. Hellman, the patient had been under the care of several other physicians. In June, 1982, the patient sued these other physicians and their associated institutions (the malpractice defendants) for malpractice, alleging that they had failed to diagnose and treat her condition. Dr. Hellman was not a party to that action. Two of the malpractice defendants retained Attorney Raymond J. Kenney, Jr., to represent them.
In June, 1983, Mr. Kenney learned that Dr. Hellman was leaving Massachusetts to accept a position as chair of clinical oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. In order to preserve Dr. Hellman's testimony for the malpractice action, Mr. Kenney served Dr. Hellman with a subpoena requiring him to appear at a deposition on June 24, 1983, and to produce all his records and office notes pertaining to the patient. The patient and her attorneys were notified of the deposition.
On June 23, 1983, Mr. Kenney came to Dr. Hellman's office to discuss the deposition scheduled for the following day. Dr. Hellman asked Mr. Kenney if it was appropriate for them to speak with each other. Mr. Kenney replied that it was. In the course of their half-hour conversation, Mr. Kenney described the procedure of the deposition and told Dr. Hellman what questions, generally, he expected to pose. Mr. Kenney asked Dr. Hellman the general substance of his testimony for the following day, and Dr. Hellman told him, discussing in general his treatment of the patient and her condition. Mr. Kenney also asked to see Dr. Hellman's records on the patient and thumbed through them. Mr. Kenney told Dr. Hellman that he already had the same records through the Brigham and Women's Hospital department of radiation therapy, where Dr. Hellman had treated the patient, but Dr. Hellman did not verify that, in fact, Mr. Kenney already had seen the same records. Dr. Hellman did not tell his patient of this meeting in advance or ask her permission to speak with Mr. Kenney.
Dr. Hellman was deposed on the following day. Several days later the patient wrote to the board complaining of Dr. Hellman's breach of confidentiality in speaking with Mr. Kenney before the deposition. She wrote:
In addition to the foregoing, the board found as follows: The board characterized Dr. Hellman's beliefs about waiver of confidentiality in the context of the imminent deposition and the pending malpractice action as "erroneous." The board concluded that Dr. Hellman's disclosures, whether or not they revealed anything previously unknown to Mr. Kenney, "constituted gross misconduct in the practice of medicine and an absence of good and accepted medical practice in violation of [G.L. c.] 112, [s] 5(c ), and 243 [Code Mass.Regs. s] 1.03(5)(a)(11), and in violation of [G.L. c.] 112, [s] 5(h ), and 243 [Code Mass.Regs. s] 1.03(5)(a)(11), by virtue of the violation of 243 [Code Mass.Regs. s] 1.03(5)(a)(3)."
The board determined that Dr. Hellman owed the patient a duty of confidentiality and that he violated that duty. The question before us is whether Dr. Hellman's breach of duty, based on beliefs that the board characterized as erroneous, may be said to constitute "gross misconduct." The board argues forcefully that confidentiality is a cardinal rule of the medical profession and that there is no excuse for Dr. Hellman's failure to telephone his patient to ask her permission to speak with Mr. Kenney. The board contends that all the other circumstances may be (and were) considered in mitigation of the sanction imposed. The board emphasizes its broad powers to define misconduct and to impose sanctions.
We interpret a regulation "in the same manner as a statute[,] and according to traditional rules of construction." Amherst Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 638, 640, 454 N.E.2d 498 (1983). See Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Department of Pub. Health, 372 Mass. 844, 854-858, 364 N.E.2d 1202 (1977). "It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that '[n]one of the words of a statute is to be regarded as superfluous, but each is to be given its ordinary meaning...." Commonwealth v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 352 Mass. 617, 618, 227 N.E.2d 357 (1967). See Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607, 609, 446 N.E.2d 1387 (1983). (Citations omitted.) Finkelstein v. Board of Registration in Optometry, 370 Mass. 476, 478, 349 N.E.2d 346 (1976).
We turn to the meaning of the words "gross misconduct." State ex rel. Gremillion v. O'Hara, 252 La. 540, 552, 211 So.2d 641 (1968). Webster's New International Dictionary 1106 (2d ed. 1959), defines "gross" in part to mean "[o]ut of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful; as, a gross injustice." In the context of negligence, we have stated: Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591, 121 N.E. 505 (1919). See Boston & Me. R.R. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 329 F.2d 602, 605 (1st Cir.1964).
The board based its decision to impose sanctions on case law in Massachusetts and elsewhere. The two major cases on which the board relies to support its conclusion that the conduct of Dr. Hellman was "gross misconduct" were decided after Dr. Hellman's meeting with Mr. Kenney. See Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 479 N.E.2d 113, cert. denied sub nom. Carroll v. Alberts, 474 U.S. 1013, 106 S.Ct. 546, 88 L.Ed.2d 475 (1985); Tower v. Hirschhorn, 397 Mass. 581, 492 N.E.2d 728 (1986). See also Schwartz v. Goldstein, 400 Mass. 152, 508 N.E.2d 97 (1987). 2 Cases in other jurisdictions were divided on the issue of waiver prior to trial. 3 The sources of professional ethics do not address the specific circumstances of this case. 4 The facts found by the board could be said to support a conclusion that Dr. Hellman's conduct was erroneous or even, perhaps, that it ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Biogen Idec Ma., Inc. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen.
...also fails. Principles governing statutory construction and application also apply to regulations. See Hellman v. Board of Registration in Med., 404 Mass. 800, 803, 537 N.E.2d 150 (1989). Thus, a regulatory change affecting substantive rights generally only applies prospectively. See Hansco......
-
Boston Professional Hockey Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, SJC-09287 (MA 1/13/2005), SJC-09287
...the word "customer" is "a person who buys goods or services." American Heritage Dictionary 327 (1969). See Hellman v. Board of Registration in Med., 404 Mass. 800, 803-804 (1989), and cases cited (regulatory interpretation, like statutory interpretation, requires giving each word plain mean......
-
D'Amour v. Board of Registration in Dentistry
...Forziati v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 333 Mass. 125, 128, 128 N.E.2d 789 (1955). See Hellman v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 404 Mass. 800, 804, 537 N.E.2d 150 (1989) (defining "gross misconduct").8 The board, in its factual findings, summarized the testimony of all the witne......
-
Barnes v. Falmouth Board Of Health
... ... Berrios v ... Dep't. Of Pub. Welfare, 411 Mass. 587, 595 (1992); ... Hellman v. Bd. of Registration in Medicine, 404 Mass. 800, ... 803 (1989). However, "the principle is ... ...
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...1980); Sard v. Hardy, 367 A.2d 525 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), rev'd, 379 A.2d 1014 (Md. 1977); Hellman v. Board of Registration in Med., 537 N.E.2d 150 (Mass. 1989); Schwartz v. Goldstein, 508 N.E.2d 97 (Mass. 1987); Tower v. Hirschhorn, 492 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1986); Alberts, 479 N.E.2d at 1......