Friday, October 7, 2022

Feet First

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice's order that had upheld the revocation of a license to practice podiatry due to false statements on a licensure application.

As to admissions elsewhere

 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.

Disclosure of prior sanctions

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.

There were also issues concerning disclosure of civil actions

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.


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, ยง 14 (7). See Knight, supra at 1022. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the single justice.

(Mike Frisch)

Comparative Professions | Permalink


Post a comment