PADMANABHAN v. CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION (2025)

The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of the county court denying his petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. We affirm.¹

In 2014, Padmanabhan commenced an action against the respondent, the Cambridge Public Health Commission, doing business as Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA), after CHA terminated Padmanabhan's employment. The litigation eventually concluded, many years later, when a judge in the Superior Court allowed CHA's motion for summary judgment. Padmanabhan appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed. See Padmanabhan v. Cambridge Health Comm'n, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1121, 2023 WL 3589301 (2023), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 144 S. Ct. 1462, 218 L.Ed.2d 692 (2024). This court subsequently denied Padmanabhan's application for further appellate review. See Padmanabhan v. Cambridge Health Comm'n, 492 Mass. 1105, 215 N.E.3d 390 (2023). Undeterred, Padmanabhan then filed his certiorari petition in the county court, asking the court to reverse the summary judgment and order a jury trial. He also asked the court to address a number of other issues, many of which stem from his disagreement with various rulings that occurred during the course of this litigation, in the trial court and in the appellate courts. The single justice denied the petition.

“Certiorari review is designed to ‘correct errors in proceedings which are not ․ otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal.’ G. L. c. 249, § 4. [Padmanabhan] has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that his claims were not otherwise reviewable.” Padmanabhan v. Cooke, 483 Mass. 1024, 1025, 135 N.E.3d 727 (2019). Indeed, as noted, he has already appealed from the summary judgment in CHA's favor. That the Appeals Court's decision, and this court's subsequent denial of his application for further appellate review, did not provide the relief that he sought does not render that review inadequate or entitle him to additional review. See, e.g., Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002, 927 N.E.2d 998, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044, 131 S.Ct. 598, 178 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (denying certiorari review where petitioners had other adequate avenue for review).

Moreover, to the extent that Padmanabhan asks the court to address a variety of other issues that at their core, stem from the same underlying trial court proceedings and various related appeals, he is essentially asking the court to revisit previous rulings or actions, which the court need not do. There is no basis for Padmanabhan's requests, and he is not entitled to any further explanations of the court's prior decisions. To the extent that Padmanabhan asks the court to revisit issues stemming from other proceedings, i.e., that do not stem from the action against CHA that is currently before us, those issues are not properly before the court.

The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petitioner's motion for oral argument, filed after the court indicated that the case would be submitted on the briefs, is denied.

RESCRIPT