Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Governor’s removal of the Commonwealth’s chief medical examiner for cause under G. L. c. 30, § 9. The court held that cause could include poor administrative performance and that judicial review was limited to determining whether the removal decision was arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s contract claims because the alleged employment agreement operated within the statutory removal authority.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Governor may remove the chief medical examiner for cause under G. L. c. 30, § 9, without proof of misfeasance, malfeasance, or wilful neglect of duty.
- Whether judicial review of the Governor's for-cause removal decision is governed by the arbitrary-or-capricious standard or the substantial-evidence standard.
- Whether the Governor's removal decision was arbitrary or capricious on the record presented.
- Whether the January 21, 2005, letter of agreement constituted an enforceable employment contract that restricted the Governor's statutory removal authority.
Holdings
- The Governor may remove the chief medical examiner for cause based on general poor performance, including neglect of duty, incompetence, inefficiency, poor supervision, or other grounds reasonably related to the needs of the governmental office; proof of misfeasance, malfeasance, or wilful neglect of duty is not required.
- A reviewing court may override the Governor's decision to remove the chief medical examiner for cause only if the decision was arbitrary or capricious.
- The Governor's decision to remove Flomenbaum was not arbitrary or capricious because the record contained evidence of serious operational, health and safety, administrative, and managerial failures at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, including the missing-body incident and inadequate oversight.
- Even assuming the January 21, 2005, letter constituted an employment contract, it did not restrict the Governor's authority to remove Flomenbaum for cause because the letter expressly made his tenure subject to G. L. c. 38, § 2, and G. L. c. 30, § 9.
Key quotations
“We conclude, therefore, that our power to override the Governor’s decision, in cases such as this, is limited to decisions that we determine to be “arbitrary or capricious.”” (451 Mass. at 747)
“Because the Governor’s decision has support in the record and is free from any error of law, it is not arbitrary or capricious.” (451 Mass. at 750)
“We conclude that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” (451 Mass. at 752)
Factual background
Mark Flomenbaum was appointed by Governor Mitt Romney as Massachusetts chief medical examiner for a five-year term beginning April 25, 2005. Before and during his appointment, Flomenbaum and the Secretary of Public Safety signed a letter describing the Commonwealth's support for a three-to-five-year effort to reform the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. In 2007, the office experienced a backlog of bodies, health and safety deficiencies, inadequate procedures, and a missing-body incident that was ultimately traced to the mistaken release of one body to a funeral home. Governor Deval Patrick removed Flomenbaum for cause after a hearing, citing serious administrative and managerial failures and lack of confidence in his ability to perform the office's functions.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed an amended and then second amended complaint in the Superior Court against the Commonwealth, the Governor, and the Secretary of Public Safety. The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the contract claims under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and sought judgment on the pleadings on the wrongful-removal claims under Rule 12(c). The single justice reserved and reported the motions without decision. The Supreme Judicial Court allowed both motions and remanded to the county court for entry of judgment for the Commonwealth on the wrongful-removal claims and dismissal of the contract claims.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the county court for entry of judgment in favor of the Commonwealth on claims six through twelve and dismissal of claims one through five.