Title: Franchini v. Bd. of Registration in Podiatry
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13226
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: October 6, 2022

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13226 
 
THOMAS C. FRANCHINI  vs.  BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN PODIATRY. 
 
 
October 6, 2022. 
 
 
Podiatrist.  Doctor, License to practice medicine.  
Administrative Law, Decision. 
 
 
The petitioner, Thomas C. Franchini, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court affirming a decision 
of the Board of Registration in Podiatry that revoked 
Franchini's license to practice podiatry in Massachusetts.  We 
affirm. 
 
Prior proceedings.  In January 2018, the board issued an 
order to show cause, alleging that an application for licensure 
submitted by Franchini to the board, dated November 8, 2016 
(application) contained knowingly false or incomplete and 
misleading responses to certain questions, in violation of 
various statutory and regulatory provisions, and directing 
Franchini to show cause why his license should not be suspended, 
revoked, or otherwise subject to disciplinary sanctions. 
 
Franchini responded to the order to show cause, arguing 
that the responses at issue either were technically accurate, or 
where inaccurate, were made inadvertently, without any intent to 
deceive.  In October 2018, prosecuting counsel for the division 
of professional licensure filed a motion requesting that the 
administrative hearings officer issue a partial summary 
decision.  Franchini opposed the motion. 
 
In April 2019, the hearings officer issued a decision on 
the motion for summary disposition, granting the motion with 
respect to the allegations that Franchini had engaged in gross 
misconduct by virtue of statements on his licensure application 
2 
 
 
 
that were untrue, incomplete, and misleading, but determining 
that additional factfinding was necessary with respect to 
allegations that Franchini should be disciplined for engaging in 
fraud, deceit, or knowingly making false statements.  An 
evidentiary hearing was held in June 2019.  At that hearing the 
parties entered into a series of stipulations establishing that 
Franchini had actual knowledge as to the false or misleading 
nature of certain responses provided in his licensure 
application.  As a result, the evidentiary hearing was converted 
into a hearing solely on the issue of sanctions. 
 
The hearings officer issued a tentative decision in 
December 2019, finding that Franchini knowingly made certain 
false and misleading statements in his licensure application and 
recommending that the board impose disciplinary sanctions.  
Franchini filed objections to the tentative decision.  In April 
2020, the board issued its findings of fact, rulings of law, and 
order (decision), largely adopting the hearing officer's 
tentative decision, with only minor corrections and revisions.  
More specifically, the board found that Franchini committed the 
following disciplinary violations:  "gross misconduct of such a 
nature so as to call into question [Franchini's] ability to 
practice podiatry, G. L. c. 112, § 61, ¶ 2(1), dishonesty, 
fraud, or deceit reasonably related to the practice of podiatry, 
G. L. c. 112, § 61, ¶ 2(5), and knowingly making false 
statements in his application to the board.  G. L. c. 112, 
§ 18."  Franchini now appeals. 
 
Summary of relevant facts.  The following facts are drawn 
from the board's April 2020 decision and supplemented by 
undisputed facts from the record. 
 
It is undisputed that Franchini submitted the application 
at issue to the board, declaring "under the pains and penalties 
of perjury" that his that his responses were "truthful and 
accurate" and affirming his understanding that "the failure to 
provide accurate information may be grounds for the [board] to 
deny, suspend, or revoke" a license issued pursuant to the 
application. 
 
Among other things, the application required, in Section C, 
that Franchini list "all professional licenses/certificates" 
held in the U.S. or any foreign country and to arrange for each 
issuing jurisdiction "to send verification of licensure status, 
either current or expired . . . ."  Further explanatory language 
in the margin of the application indicates that Section C 
applies to "persons who have ever or currently hold licenses," 
3 
 
 
 
and Section C includes a grid with blank spaces for applicants 
to enter the requested information, including columns in which 
to indicate whether a license is "current," "lapsed," 
"revoked/suspended," or subject to "probation."  In this 
section, Franchini listed three licenses, issued by the States 
of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, respectively.  The 
board found that Franchini's response was incomplete, 
misleading, and knowingly made, as Franchini had also been 
licensed in Vermont, Maine, and the District of Columbia. 
 
The application further required Franchini to indicate 
whether any "disciplinary, termination, or restrictive action 
. . . [had been] taken against [him] within the past ten years 
by a . . . Professional Association or Organization Hospital," 
and if so, to attach an explanation to the application.  
Franchini responded in the negative.  The board concluded that 
this statement was false because Franchini's privileges to 
practice podiatry were summarily suspended by the United States 
Department of Veteran's Affairs, VA Maine Healthcare System by 
correspondence dated April 28, 2010, due to concerns "raised to 
suggest that aspects of [Franchini's] clinical practice do not 
meet the accepted standards of practice and potentially 
constitute an imminent threat to patient welfare."  The board 
further concluded that Franchini knew the statement was false 
when he completed the application. 
 
The board noted in its decision that, as a Federal employee 
working at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Maine, 
Franchini was not individually amenable to suit under the 
Federal Tort Claims Act, but he was subject to claims presented 
to that administrative agency; in fact, bringing such an 
administrative claim is a prerequisite to bringing an action 
against the individual's public employer in Federal court.  See 
28 U.S.C. §§ 2674, 2675(a).  The board found that at least four 
such claims had been lodged against Franchini and remained 
unresolved at the time he signed the application.  As to those 
claims, the board found that Franchini truthfully stated that he 
was not a "defendant in a civil proceeding," as he was not a 
properly-named defendant in any civil suit pursuant to the 
Federal Tort Claims Act.  However, the board found that 
Franchini's negative response to the question whether "any 
medical malpractice claim had been made against [him] which 
ha[d] not yet been finally settled or adjudicated, whether or 
not a lawsuit was filed in relation to the claim," was knowingly 
false. 
 
4 
 
 
 
In contrast, Franchini answered "yes" to the question 
whether any medical malpractice claims made against him had been 
"settled, adjudicated, or otherwise resolved."  The board found 
that this answer, although technically correct, was knowingly 
incomplete and misleading, as Franchini did not provide any 
further elaboration in connection with this response.  At the 
time Franchini submitted the application, the National 
Practitioner Data Bank indicated that two medical malpractice 
payments had been made to resolve claims against Franchini, one 
in January 2014 and another in March 2014.  Franchini's license 
to practice podiatry in Massachusetts was issued in reliance on 
the false or incomplete and misleading answers provided by him.  
Based on all these findings, the board revoked his license. 
 
Discussion.  "Under G. L. c. 112, § 64, a person whose 
license to practice medicine has been revoked may petition the 
court to 'enter a decree revising or reversing the decision 
. . . in accordance with the standards for review provided' 
in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7)."  Knight v. Board of Registration in 
Med., 487 Mass. 1019, 1022 (2021), quoting Clark v. Board of 
Registration of Social Workers, 464 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2013).  
"Under the latter statute, the court can modify or set aside the 
decision of the board only if the petitioner demonstrates that 
his or her 'substantial rights . . . may have been prejudiced' 
because the agency decision is in violation of constitutional 
provisions, based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial 
evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, 
or contains one or more other enumerated defects not at issue 
here."  Knight supra, quoting G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).  See 
Weinberg v. Board of Registration in Med., 443 Mass. 679, 685 
(2005); Fisch v. Board of Registration in Med., 437 Mass. 128, 
131 (2002).  "This court 'reviews the Massachusetts board's 
decision directly, even though the appeal is from a decision of 
the single justice.'"  Knight, supra, quoting Lankheim v. Board 
of Registration in Nursing, 458 Mass. 1022, 1023 (2011). 
 
On appeal, Franchini raises a number of arguments in 
support of his contention that the board's decision was 
unsupported by substantial evidence and that the board's 
imposition of the sanction of revocation was arbitrary and 
capricious.  At the heart of these arguments is Franchini's 
contention that the responses he provided in the application 
were technically correct, or where admittedly incorrect, that he 
lacked any fraudulent or deceitful intent.  Franchini made these 
same arguments before the board, and the board rejected them, 
concluding in each instance that Franchini's false or incomplete 
and misleading responses were knowingly made.  There is ample 
5 
 
 
 
evidence in the record to support the board's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and to support the board's concomitant 
rejection of Franchini's alternate characterization of events.  
Franchini's repetition of those arguments here does not satisfy 
his burden to demonstrate that the board's decision was 
arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, 
or that it suffered from another enumerated defect under G. L. 
c. 30A, § 14 (7).  See Knight, supra at 1022.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the judgment of the single justice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Thomas C. Franchini, pro se. 
 
LaRonica K. Lightfoot, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondent.