Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Analysis The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Mr. Berryman, establish that he was informed of the reason that the BPD had decided that he be bypassed on or before March 29, 2016. His appeal was filed on July 9, 2016, more than three months later. Thus, Mr.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005); Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); see also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) 2 (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (denying motion to dismiss due to factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Analysis HRD promulgated the medical standards pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws c. 31, 61A with the approval of the Legislature. The Category A medical conditions are absolutely disqualifying. "HRD must abide by legislative mandates and the Commission has no choice but to affirm decisions which are made adherent to those mandates." See Granlund v. Human Resources Division, 19 MCSR 268 (2006).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). The non-moving party must offer specific facts which establish a reasonable hope of prevailing after an evidentiary hearing in order to survive a motion for summary decision. Id.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005); Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); see also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (denying motion to dismiss due to factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). RELEVANT CIVIL SERVICE LAW Section 61A of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that: No person appointed to a permanent, temporary or intermittent, or reserve police or firefighter position shall perform the duties of such position until he shall have undergone initial medical and physical fitness examinations and shall have met such initial standards.
The number of times the Commissioner has referred a persons petition and supporting documents to the Parole Board, pursuant to 501 CMR 17.08(1), prior to issuing her decision to grant; and p. The number of medically paroled people released to the following, with racial/ethnic breakdown: i. a private home; ii. a hospital; iii. a nursing facility; iv. a hospice. [3] Of the total number of denials of medical parole for each calendar year, a.
, 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole