Source: http://me.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170303_0000309.ME.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 23:29:42
Document Index: 313520830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§9051', '§8003', '§3269', '§ 3282', '§8003', '§11002', 'art:\n2']

FindACase™ | Lamorgese v. State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine
Lamorgese v. State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine
ROBERTS. LAMORGESE, M.D.
STATE OF MAINE BOARD OF LICENSURE IN MEDICINE
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS RULE 80C APPEAL
On June 16, 2016 the State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine (herafter "Board") issued a Decision and Order pursuant to 5 M.R.S. §9051-9064, 10 M.R.S. §8003(5), 32 M.R.S. §3269 and 3282-A regarding Petitioner's medical license. By its decision the Board made findings that the Petitioner had exhibited incompetence in the practice for which he is licensed by engaging in conduct that evidenced a lack of ability or fitness to discharge his duties, subjecting him to discipline pursuant to 32 M.R.S. § 3282-A[2)[E(1), Pursuant to 10 M.R.S. 8003(5)(A-1), the Board imposed terms of probation, setting forth a number of conditions of probation and the timeframe to comply with those conditions. Condition 3(a) required Petitioner:
Prior to his first patient contact, the Licensee must engage a Board-approved practice monitor who will meet with the Licensee every two weeks to review patient charts and who will report to the Board every month for a period of six months. The Licensee may meet with the practice monitor via telemedicine.[1]
That Decision and Order was not timely appealed and no Petition for Review was filed within 30 days per 10 M.R.S. §8003(5] and 5M.R.S. §11002(3]. No further formal disciplinary or enforcement action has yet been brought by the Board to enforce the terms and conditions of probation.
On December 2, 2016 Petitioner filed the pending Petition for Judicial Review of Final Agency Action pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80C. In his Petition for Review, the Petitioner challenges the findings and decision made by the Board in its June 16, 2016 Decision and Order. Petitioner also asserts email communications, specifically a November 10, 2016 email, from the Board significantly altered the conditions of his probation, and therefore said email is a final agency action from which Petitioner has the right of appeal. The facts relative to said email are as follows:
By an email dated October 27, 2016 from Petitioner's counsel to Julie Best of the Board, counsel wrote:
I still need clarification as to whether the BOM insists that the telemedicine monitoring be in person or by video link, (Record, p. 74].
Ms. Best responded to Petitioner's counsel with an email dated October 28, 2016, which stated, in part:
2. The Board's decision and order indicates that Dr. Lamorgese "may meet with the practice monitor via telemedicine." The Board will be asked to discuss whether this provision was intended to require the monitor to use telemedicine or rather to use it at his/her discretion. The Board will also be asked to discuss if use of the telephone alone to conduct monitoring fas telemedicine) will be sufficient to comply with the decision and order. (Record, pp. 73-74). Per meeting minutes--
On November 10, 2016, Ms. Best wrote to Petitioner's counsel by email:
On November 8th, the Board met and discussed the points in my email below. The outcome of their discussion is as follows:
• The use of telemedicine to conduct monitoring is at the discretion of the monitor.
• telephone only monitoring is not acceptable. (Record, p. 73].[2]
As stated, on December 2, 2016, the pending Petition for Review of Final Agency Action was filed. On December 19, 2016, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Judicial Review on the basis the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and because the November 10, 2016 email was not final agency action. A phone conference regarding the Motion ...