Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Judicial Court hears whether insurer must defend doctor in board complaint over alleged improper prescribing
Summary
The court considered whether MagMutual Insurance must pay defense costs for Dr. William O'Connor in a Board of Registration in Medicine complaint alleging he prescribed medication to manipulate a personal relationship. Justices focused on timing (2016 prescriptions, 2019 policy), the policy's definition of "professional activity," and whether mixed allegations trigger a duty to defend.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument over whether MagMutual Insurance Company must defend Dr. William E. O'Connor in an administrative complaint to the Board of Registration in Medicine that alleges he prescribed medication to manipulate a patient's personal relationship.
Attorney Christopher Trundy, representing plaintiff‑appellant William O'Connor, told the court: "We are here asking you to reverse the determination of coverage, which was entered in the Superior Court, and we believe was in error, because the actual policy language very explicitly covers the nature of the insurance." Trundy emphasized that the policy contains a standalone regulatory‑defense provision to cover defenses in administrative investigations even where no malpractice claim for damages has been tendered.
The bench repeatedly pressed counsel on timing: "Can I ask a time question? So the policy is entered into in 2019, right?" Justice Kafker asked,…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
