Title: Bock v. Bd. of Registration in Medicine

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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