Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass.230, 235(19990) (The law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts . . .the benefit of conclusiveness); Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 579 (1956) (That a person qualifies as an expert does not endow his testimony with magic qualities); Fourth Street Pub, Inc v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 28 Mass. App.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). In the present case, the Commission finds the testimony of both Sergeant Vecchi and the Appellant to be highly credible. Both witnesses made good eye contact, were clear and concise, exhibited positive body language, and were able to clearly recall the events in question, and did not hesitate in their answers. Throughout their testimony, they appeared sincere and truthful.
Examples of limited/light duty may include, but no be limited to the following: clerical work, dispatching, training, investigative assistance, court work, public relations and other duties approved by the Chief of Police. 40 (b) The term physician or doctor as used herein shall mean any legal practitioner licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board ofRegistrationinMedicine. Section 3: Performance of Limited/Light Duty Assignments.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 420 Mass 154, 165 (1995). The Department failed to call Sgt. Skeldon, the alleged complainant in this matter, as a witness. The Department failed to show any excuse for its failure to call him as a witness. The Commission was thereby denied the opportunity to assess the credibility or reliability of Sgt. Skeldons testimony.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (19990) (The law should not, and does not, 31 give the opinions of experts the benefit of conclusiveness.). The Commission has also consistently held police to a high standard of conduct even in the absence of indictable conduct or a criminal conviction. For example, in Zorzi v.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 444 Mass. 837, 844 (2005). In this case, because the actual elimination of overtime occurred after the first charge was ripe for probable cause review, this event could not have been considered or litigated because it had yet to occur. We note that the Union filed the instant charge before the former Commission issued its Order of Dismissal in Case No. MUP-05-4523.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 444 Mass. 837, 844 (2005). In this case, because the actual elimination of overtime occurred after the first charge was ripe for probable cause review, this event could not have been considered or litigated because it had yet to occur. 37 MLC at 166.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, Mass. 837, (2005) (ruling of issues have to 844 inapplicable was not probable a the review, yet for way Absent case, cause had ripe the no case. that been where proven the until that issue wrongful two years this was event because no it identity 444 preclusion conduct in question after previous the decision).
Board ofRegistration inMedicine, 444 Mass. 837, 844 (2005). In this case, because the actual elimination of overtime (*183] occurred after the first charge was ripe for probable cause review, this event could not have been considered or litigated because it had yet to occur. 37 MLC at 166.
Board ofRegistration inMedicine, 444 Mass. 837, 844 (2005). In this case, because the actual elimination of overtime occurred after the first charge was ripe for probable cause review, this event could not have been considered or litigated because it had yet to occur. 37 MLC at 166.
Board ofRegistrationinMedicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994), quoting Commonwealth V. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (1990) ("[t]he law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts on either side of . . . [a]n issue the benefit of conclusiveness, even if there are no contrary opinions introduced at the trial"). See also Boston Gas Co. v.