Mohammad Banki, M.D., D.M.D. v. Michael D. Fine, M.D.
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, Mohammad Banki, M.D., D.M.D., and Frank Paletta, M.D., D.M.D., filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order and judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion of the defendant, the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Health, to dismiss their administrative appeal. In 2013, the Investigating Committee of the Rhode Island Department of Health's Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline made a finding of unprofessional conduct against each of the plaintiffs. During the adjudication of the charges, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the charges, citing the department's failure to comply with discovery requests and arguing the department had violated the hearing officer's conditional order of default. The hearing officer denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Superior Court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, G.L. 1956 § 42-35-15. A hearing justice of the Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs' administrative appeal, holding that the plaintiffs appealed an interlocutory order, the denial of a motion to dismiss, and therefore judicial review was inappropriate. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the hearing justice's resulting order and judgment. The Court granted the plaintiffs' petition and issued the writ of certiorari but ordered that the Superior Court retain the record for a limited purpose. A second hearing justice entered a default judgment against the department, for failure to provide the original administrative record. The department filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the resulting judgment. The Court granted the petition and consolidated the two cases. The Court held that the Superior Court did have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' administrative appeal because the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements of § 42-35-15 did not deprive the Superior Court of subject-matter jurisd
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “‘Generally, no witness may offer testimony in the form of an opinion regarding the guilt or veracity of the defendant; such testimony is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant because it invad[es] the exclusive province of the [jury].’” (internal quotation marks omitted
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.