Listen to this article
Where the Department of Public Health has decided to refuse to renew the respondents’ licenses to operate clinics that provide mental health and substance use disorder treatment, the department’s decision should be affirmed because the department has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondents repeatedly failed to comply with the regulations that govern clinics and substance use disorder treatment programs and lacked responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic.
“Through two of its bureaus, the Department of Public Health (Department) issued licenses and approvals to Respondents Patrice Lamour, Lamour Community Health Institute, Lamour by Design, and Lamour Clinics (collectively Lamour) to operate clinics that provide mental health and substance use disorder treatment. The Department issued notices of its intent to refuse to renew Respondents’ licenses and approvals, Lamour requested a hearing, and the Department referred the notices to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) for hearing. …
“Respondent Patrice Lamour is the president of Respondent Lamour Community Health Clinic (LCHI) and is the sole owner of Respondent Lamour By Design Inc. (LBD) d/b/a Lamour Clinic. …
“Healthcare Licensure’s Notice of Intended Agency Action stated five reasons for its intended refusal to renew LCHI’s and LBD’s clinic licenses: (1) lack of responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic; (2) violation of any state statute or regulation pertaining to the operation of the clinic; (3) violation of any applicable provision of 105 CMR 140.000 and failure to remedy a cited violation; (4) willful misrepresentation of information submitted to the Department; and (5) denial of the Department’s right to visit and inspect the clinics. As a finding on any single ground for the refusal to renew is sufficient to uphold the Commissioner’s decision, the analysis below focuses on two interrelated grounds for the Department’s decision, the lack of responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic and the violation of any state regulation pertaining to the operation of the clinic. Based on the result of that analysis, delving into the additional grounds is not necessary. …
“Healthcare Licensure identified numerous regulatory violations by LCHI, many of which remained uncorrected over time. LCHI ultimately corrected all but one, but Department regulations require it to consider ‘all relevant information’ when considering suitability, including a history of regulatory non-compliance. …
“… LCHI failed to comply with several clinic regulations on numerous occasions; each failure to comply constitutes sufficient grounds for the Department to refuse to renew LCHI’s license. Accordingly, pursuant to 105 CMR 140.131 and 105 CMR 140.132(B)(3), the Department has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that LCHI lacked responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic. …
“I find that the relevant information provided sufficient grounds to issue the Notice of Intended Agency Action against LBD. Accordingly, pursuant to 105 CMR 140.131 and 105 CMR 140.132(B)(3), the Department has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that LCHI lacked responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic. …
“… Based on the evidence cited above, the Department has demonstrated that it had sufficient grounds to issue the Notice of Intended Agency Action against LBD relating to its BSAS approval. Accordingly, pursuant to 105 CMR 164.509 and 105 CMR 164.519, the Department has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that LBD lacked responsibility and suitability to operate a clinic. …
“For the reasons set forth above, I find that the Department has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that LCHI and LBD are not suitable or responsible to operate a clinic. I therefore recommend that the Commissioner refuse to renew LCHI’s and LBD’s clinic license.”
Department of Public Health v. Lamour, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-032-26) (34 pages) (Goldberg, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Matt A. Murphy for the petitioners; Sol Cohen for the respondents (Docket No. PH-23-0504) (March 17, 2026).