The Massachusetts Board of Medicine Must Meet a “Preponderance of the Evidence” Standard to Impose a Temporary Suspension of a Physician’s License

 A single-justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that a temporary suspension by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine must be based on the “preponderance of the evidence,” and not merely “substantial evidence.” See Randall v. Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, SJ-2014-0475.

The Board of Registration in Medicine can summarily (temporarily) suspend a physician’s license if it “determines that a licensee is an immediate and serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.” However, the Board must “provide a hearing on the necessity for the summary action within seven days after the suspension.” If the temporary suspension is upheld at that hearing, the temporary suspension remains in effect pending a hearing on the merits of the allegations against the licensee and a final decision.

The single-justice of the SJC agreed that “substantial evidence” was the appropriate standard to be applied when administrative decisions are appealed to the courts, but that it is the inappropriate standard to be applied in the first instance. The single-justice noted that “[w]hile due process requirements may be lessened in the context of a temporary suspension, resulting in shorter time frames and the consideration of the available evidence in less than pristine or complete form, such a suspension must still be based on the preponderance of the evidence actually considered.”

This ruling helps to clarify the standard that must be followed by administrative law judges in determining whether a temporary or summary suspension is warranted. As this type of suspension can cause significant harm to a physician’s practice, even if he or she is later exonerated, this new standard will hopefully ensure that temporary/summary suspensions are only issued when the facts of the case call for such a finding.