Case Title: Vilbon v. Board of Registration in Nursing

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12359

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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.