• Board of Registration in Medicine v. Julian Abbey, RM-06-962 (DALA, 2008)

    DALA recommends that the Board impose appropriate discipline where the Board proved that doctor (1) fraudulently procured the renewal of his certificate of registration; (2) practiced medicine while his ability to do so was impaired by drugs; (3) failed to maintain records in accordance with G.L. c. 94C; (4) committed boundary violations; and (5) was guilty of sexual misconduct with a patient.
  • BRM v. Dr. Neena Chaturvedi, RM-06-38 (DALA, 2009)

    It is clear on the entire record that Dr. Chaturvedi failed to adequately manage the growth in her practice and that attempts to modernize administrative systems may have created more problems than they solved. Also clear is that there are mitigating circumstances. Moreover, it appears, with the Board's guidance, Dr. Chaturvedi's management of records and patients was improving. In all this, I found no evidence that any patient's health was put in jeopardy by Dr. Chaturvedi's conduct. Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the Board take such action as is consistent with the foregoing rulings.
  • BRM v. Dr. Joseph Conway, RM-08-29 (DALA, 2009)

    Physician who did not have malpractice insurance coverage for certain stretches of time violated a regulation of the Board of Registration in Medicine (BRM)and is subject to discipline by said board
  • BRM v. Dr. Marc Freedman, RM-07-143 (DALA, 2008)

    The Board of Registration in Medicine has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Respondent fraudulently procured his license renewal registration.
  • BRM v. Dr. Bruce Hookway, RM-09-591 (DALA, 2010)

    Physician who was disciplined in Rhode Island for pattern of prescribing controlled substances to patients in a manner that does not meet medical practice standard is subject to discipline by the Board.
  • BRM v. Dr. Joseph Jackson, RM-08-777 (DALA, 2009)

    In conclusion, the Respondent has asserted a valid claim of privilege with respect to his psychotherapy records. The Motion to Compel Production of those records is DENIED.
  • BRM v. Dr. Vernon Kellogg, RM-07-706(DALA, 2010)

    I conclude that petitioner has proven that respondent violated pertinent statutes, rules and regulations, and that petitioner acted according to its statutory and regulatory authority in taking the actions it has against respondent. Respondent failed to reveal to petitioner on his license renewal forms that he no longer held certification in emergency medicine, that he had stopped his malpractice insurance policy, and that he had been investigated twice by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Respondent also altered his expired malpractice insurance declarations to show he held the insurance, failed to provide his home patients’ medical records to petitioner upon being subpoenaed to produce them, and did not follow petitioner’s prescribing guidelines concerning immediate care needs of a patient when he dispensed generic Vicodin in large amounts to some of his home patients.
  • BRM v. Dr. James Kelly, RM-08-268 (DALA, 2009)

    Petitioner's Motion to Default is granted