Medical review panel adopts resolution recommending conditional reinstatement of Dr. Singal, suggests voluntary oversight by Haven

A medical review panel on May 12 adopted a proposed decision recommending conditional reinstatement of Dr. Singal, with monitoring requirements, limits on routine night work and recommended—but did not order—voluntary oversight by an external organization called Haven.

The panel’s attorney, Bricklin Goldstein, told the hearing the panel met with Haven last week to gather information about ‘‘costs, policies and processes’’ and that the meeting was informational; the panel ‘‘did not engage in any deliberation or discussion of the facts relative to this case’’ during that session, Goldstein said.

Panel psychiatrists debated whether adding Haven would help coordinate care and detect early signs of decompensation or instead risk disrupting an apparently stable therapeutic relationship. Dr. Wolf said he was ‘‘very conflicted’’ and worried that adding another clinical party could add pressure for the respondent; he noted Haven’s stated fees for an initial assessment of $750 and a $180 base monthly monitoring fee.

Other panel members described Haven’s potential role as consultative and supervisory rather than a substitute therapist or prescriber. One panelist said Haven ‘‘would oversee the whole process and could coordinate her treatment, particularly if any problems arose.’’ The panel repeatedly emphasized that any involvement by Haven would require the respondent’s and DPH’s agreement and could not be compelled by the panel.

As conditions, the panel instructed that the respondent provide periodic reports to the Department of Public Health (or to Haven if Haven were engaged), and that employers provide quarterly reports. The panel clarified ‘‘no night work’’ to mean the respondent should not hold routine night shifts, though traditional on‑call duties requiring occasional nighttime responses (phone advice or wake‑up calls) would be acceptable.

Panelists recommended therapy and prescriber follow-up parameters but left room for providers’ discretion. Discussion included continuing the respondent’s current schedule (therapy generally every other week; prescriber visits every six weeks) as a baseline, setting minimum frequencies (therapy no less frequent than monthly; one panelist suggested therapy twice a month for the probation period), and prescriber visits initially twice monthly for three months then moving to monthly, with adjustments based on clinical progress.

The panel moved to adopt the resolution, and after a second the chair recorded unanimous support: ‘‘We’re all in favor.’’ The motion carried and the panel adopted the proposed decision to resolve the charges. The transcript does not name who made the motion or the second.

Members expressed concern the written memorandum of decision can take months to produce and urged the Department of Public Health to prepare the draft promptly. Miss Mayor and the chair agreed to relay the request to DPH for prioritized drafting and delivery to the panel.

The hearing concluded with the panel expressing support for the respondent’s recovery and adjourning the session.