After Defendants were charged with Medicaid fraud, the Commonwealth obtained search warrants to obtain and search designated e-mail accounts of Defendants' former billing director. Defendants moved for a protective order, claiming that the attorney-client privilege protected many of the e-mails. A motion judge amended the order to permit the Commonwealth to search the e-mails by using a "taint team," assistant attorneys general not involved in the investigation or prosecution of Defendants. Defendants filed a petition seeking relief from the order. The Supreme Court answered reported questions from the county court by holding (1) the Commonwealth may, by means of an ex parte search warrant, search the post-indictment emails of a criminal defendant; and (2) the "taint team" procedure was permissible under the Massachusetts Constitution. View "Preventive Med. Assocs. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law
Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
This case involved Commonwealth Care, a state-initiated program that provided structured premium assistance for low-income Massachusetts residents. In 2009, the Legislature made certain changes to the eligibility requirements of Commonwealth Care, enacted in a two-part supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2010. Section 31(a) of the appropriation excluded all aliens who were federally ineligible under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646, from participation in Commonwealth Care. Plaintiffs were individuals who either have been terminated from Commonwealth Care or have been denied eligibility solely as a result of their alienage. The court held that section 31(a) could not pass strict scrutiny and that the discrimination against legal immigrants that its limiting language embodied violated their rights to equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution. View "Finch & others v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth. & others" on Justia Law
This action arose when claimant, a former customer service representative for Verizon New England, Inc. ("Verizon"), was denied unemployment benefits. At issue was whether the board of review of the division of unemployed assistance ("board") erred because Verizon took the "last step" in the termination process that entitled claimant to unemployment benefits. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which affirmed the decision of the board, to deny claimant benefits because the court agreed with the board's conclusion that the claimant did not meet her burden of showing that her decision to leave was involuntary, where she was not compelled to apply for the termination, did not believe her job was in jeopardy, and left in part for personal reasons.