In September 2002 Dr. Minkina joined internal medicine practice affiliated with Beth Israel Medical Center (BIDMC), a major Boston teaching hospital.  However, with the beginning of winter and heating season she discovered that office had poor ventilation and was filled with exhaust fumes (Doc. 1). Her complaints and attempts to make building management to fix the problems that many of my coworkers noticed but discuss between themselves, quickly made her unpopular with the practice director and corporate management. In 2003 her Employer discriminated against Dr. Minkina as a woman, then retaliated and, finally, terminated my contract in violation of public policy and without cause only because I complained about poor air quality in the medical office where I worked. OSHA validated my complaints about air quality (Doc. 2) and then Governor Romney asked Department of Public Health (DPH) to investigate my concern. The DPH in its turn asked Attorney General (AG) to investigate and take actions (Doc. 3), but nothing was done. Dr. Minkina became a pariah and management constantly harassment and discrimination against her. She was accused of not being a “team member” and pushed out into an office slated for closing under pre-text that the practice was losing male patients since there were too many women and too few man physicians working in the office, so she has been swapped for a "real man" against her protests (Doc. 4). She retained an attorney and tried to resolve the dispute amicably, but when after more than a month negotiations were not resolved she filed a complaint with OSHA and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (December 2003). That even more enraged practice management that denied any wrongdoing, but as soon as the guaranteed contract expired on September 30,. 2004 terminated Dr. Minkina's employment without cause giving her about a month to close her practices even insurance and medical guidelines require primary care physician giving patients and at least 3 months time to find a new provider.

    In light of the arbitrator’s decision cutting her fee award due to duplication of legal work, Dr. Minkina demanded that RPS voluntarily refund the fees paid to it. RPS refused. In March of 2008, RPS and Minkina participated in a mediation with JAMS conducted by the Honorable Maria Walsh. The mediation was unproductive.

    Over the period from October, 2013 through January 16, 2016, Dr. Minkina appealed both the ruling on summary judgment and the order allowing the Fee Motion. The Appeals Court ultimately affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court refused to accept Minkina’s appeal for further appellate review.

         On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff RPS filed suit on its judgment with the Norfolk Superior Court in Rodgers Powers & Schwartz LLP v. Nataly Minkina, M.D. et al, Case No. 1682CV00749 (hereinafter the “Collection Action”).  

      On July 14, 2016, Attorney Noah B. Goodman entered an appearance on behalf of Minkina.  

   On August 16, 2016, Attorney Goodman informed RPS that certain documents requested in its Request for Production of Documents were ready for production, but due to the sensitive information included in such documents relating to Minkina and her husband, Minkina would require the execution of a confidentiality agreement. RPS refused to accept the confidentiality agreement and instead on September 9, 2016 filed a motion to compel document production and served subpoenas on Minkina’s banks.  

    On August 31, 2016 the Court ordered the attachment of Minkina’s wages and allowed an attachment by way of reach and apply upon Minkina’s case against Professional Medical Mutual Insurance Company then pending in the Norfolk Superior Court (hereinafter the “ProMutual Case”). 

     Facing a substantial reduction in her net income and an inability to pay for her legal representation, Dr. Minkina agreed to allow Attorney Goodman to withdraw his representation and proceeded pro se. Despite RPS’s objection, the Court allowed Attorney Goodman’s withdrawal on September 26, 2016.

     In response to RPS’s motion to compel the production of documents and the subpoena issued to her banks, Minkina filed a motion to quash. Superior Court Judge Brian Davis denied the motion to quash and ordered the production of certain financial documents. Dr. Minkina filed an interlocutory appeal with the single Justice of the Appeals Court seeking a protective order that would secure her sensitive and private financial information from public disclosure. 

     On November 30, 2016 a single Justice of the Appeals Court ordered that Minkina’s financial documents be kept confidential. In a follow up hearing held on December 29, 2016, Judge Davis issued the confidentiality order and denied RPS’s motion for contempt of court and for a preliminary injunction. In March of 2017 Dr. Minkina produced all of the responsive financial documents she had in her possession and filed a motion asking the Court to limit RPS’s abusive demand for the production of financial documents (credit card statements and tax returns) that were infringing on her husband’s right to privacy and violated spousal privilege. Judge William Sullivan who had rotated into the session was unexpectedly re-assigned to another court and the discovery motions were put on hold until Judge Riccuiti was assigned in mid-May of 2017. 

     Judge Riccuiti scheduled a hearing on the status of the discovery on June 13, 2017. However, not long before that hearing Judge Ricciuti canceled it. On June 15, 2017 an order by Judge Davis denying Minkina’s objections to the discovery and setting a deadline of June 16, 2017 (a day later) for her to produce responsive documents (Doc. 13).

     Dr. Minkina filed a motion requesting Judge Davis to recuse himself. That motion was denied by Judge Ricciuti (sic!) who stated that he is in session. Before Minkina had a chance to file any further motion or appeal Judge Ricciuti issued an order docketed on July 7, 2017 awarding RPS attorney’s fees in the amount of $30,680 relating to the discovery motions (hereinafter the “July Fee Award”).  

     The July Fee Award followed RPS’s misstatement to the Court that Minkina had not made any payments toward the judgment, despite its knowledge that the 15% maximum of her gross wages was being paid to it monthly in installments of $2,250. Counsel for RPS later corrected this misrepresentation and acknowledged that RPS had been receiving payments pursuant to the garnishment since September of 2016.  

    In connection with the July Fee Award, RPS submitted logs of time entries by its counsel, however, no demonstration was made that the fees sought were in fact incurred and paid by RPS. On July 10, 2017 RPS filed a complaint for contempt of court and a motion for preliminary injunction (hereinafter the “Second Contempt Motion”) and to appoint a receiver (Doc. 14). RPS admitted on the record that Minkina’s retirement accounts and her Home (owned as tenants by the entirety and subject to a homestead) were exempt assets (Doc. 14, page 3, paragraphs 8a & 8b correspondingly). Dr. Minkina filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction and to the Complaint for contempt. 

   On September 29, 2017 Judge Ricciuti held a hearing and denied RPS’s request for a preliminary injunction, however, he did issue an order restricting Minkina’s use of her exempt retirement accounts (Doc. 15).  

     On the record, Judge Ricciuti clearly stated that Minkina’s house is an exempt asset and that the amount of its equity was irrelevant to RPS’s attempts to collect (Doc. 15, page 61-62). RPS complained to the Court that the Debtor had not paid the July Sanction Award. Judge Ricciuti asked Dr. Minkina why she did not pay the award and she explained that she did not have the money to pay the July Fee Award . Seemingly content with Minkina’s representation that she did not have the ability to pay, Judge Ricciuti took no action at that time to further compel payment of the July Fee Award. 

     Unsatisfied with the court’s order on November 15, 2017 RPS filed yet another complaint for contempt of court (hereinafter the “Third Contempt Motion”). After a hearing on December 7, 2017 Judge Davis ordered Minkina to produce some additional forms and documents and ordered her to pay the July Fee Award of $30,680 by December 20, 2017 despite her objection and repeated contention that she did not have the ability to pay, other than from exempt assets.   

     At no time was an evidentiary hearing held by Judge Davis or any other judge of the Norfolk Superior Court with respect to Minkina’s exempt assets and/or her ability to pay RPS judgment award or attorney fee awards imposed by the court, or the Third Contempt Motion. 

     On December 20, 2017 Judge Davis found Dr. Minkina in contempt of court and ordered her incarceration for 90 days due to her failure to pay $30,680 to RPS (hereinafter the “First Incarceration Order”). The First Incarceration Order was issued despite Minkina’s protests and the presentation of evidence demonstrating that she did not have non-exempt funds available to pay the award.  

      In addition to ordering her incarceration, at the urging of RPS, Judge Davis imposed an additional sanction against Minkina in the amount of $10,560 representing attorneys’ fees purportedly incurred by RPS (hereinafter the “December Fee Award”). Like the July Fee Award, no evidence demonstrating that RPS had in fact incurred and paid such fees was presented.  

      With the Debtor incarcerated pursuant to the First Incarceration Order, a plea to her brother to pay the $30,680 July Fee Amount was answered on December 21, 2017. Purged of her civil contempt, she was released from the prison that same day. 

    On January 8, 2018 (docketed on January 10, 2018) Minkina filed a memorandum contesting legality of the punishment imposed by the First Incarceration Order and the December Fee Award. No hearing was set before Judge Davis on the motion contesting her imprisonment and the validity of the December Fee Award. Rather, the motion was left unheard until Judge Hallal took over the proceedings in April 2018.

    RPS continued its pattern of filing misleading complaints for contempt of Court with a fourth complaint for contempt filed on January 10, 2018 and a fifth on March 27, 2018. In addition, it filed a motion for a mandatory injunction dated January 17, 2018. Dr. Minkina opposed the motion for mandatory injunction and all further contempt complaints.  

      On May 2, 2018 the Court set a hearing on the merits of the fourth and fifth contempt complaints for May 31, 2018. At the May 2, 2018 hearing, Minkina provided evidence that attorney Casher, on behalf of RPS mislead the Court relating to what had been produced by Minkina. Following the hearing, attorney Casher corrected the record and apologized to the Court (Doc. 16).

     Among the complaints for contempt was that the Debtor had purportedly violated the Court’s order by withdrawing money from her retirement accounts for purposes other than those authorized by the order. More precisely, RPS complained that taxes were being withheld by the administrator of the accounts in connection with each withdrawal. Dr. Minkina argued that the withholding of taxes was automatic with the withdrawals and not directed by her and as such not in violation of any order. Further, the Debtor argued that because the accounts at issue were exempt, it was improper for the court to restrict or limit their use. Minkina represented that she did not have any non-exempt assets available to pay the December Fee Award.  

    On May 31, 2018 Judge Hallal issued an order forbidding Minkina from withdrawing money from her retirement accounts to pay for her legal representation in any case, overwriting the previous order by Judge Ricciuti.  

    On June 4, 2018 Judge Hallal ordered Minkina to pay the December Fee Award of $10,560 by June 12, 2018 and $79,000 by July 10, 2018 (hereinafter the “June 2018 Payment Order”).  

    The $79,000 (hereinafter the “Exempt Account Withdrawals”) was calculated based on the gross amounts withdrawn by Minkina from her exempt retirement accounts notwithstanding the fact that Minkina continued to note that taxes were withheld from such withdrawals and that a portion of the withdrawals was paid to her brother as partial repayment for his loan extended to purge her contempt following the First Incarceration.  

     Dr. Minkina filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 2018 Payment Order, and reconsideration was denied by Judge Hallal without hearing or opinion shortly thereafter. Minkina filed an appeal to a single Justice of the Appeals Court requesting the reversal of Judge Hallal’s June 2018 Payment Order. The Single Justice denied Minkina’s motion without hearing or explanation. 

    Faced with the prospect of a second incarceration and her inability to withdraw money from her exempt retirement accounts, Dr. Minkina used cash advance checks from two credit cards to pay the December Fee Award of $10,560 on June 12, 2018. Minkina remained, however, subject to further threat of incarceration as a result of her inability to pay the remaining $79,000 required by the June 2018 Payment Order on or before July 10, 2018.  

    On July 10, 2018, Dr. Minkina filed an emergency motion with the Norfolk Superior Court arguing that a) Judge Hallal was mislead by RPS’s mistaken calculations relating to the Exempt Account Withdrawals and in demanding further sanctions arising out of the use of exempt funds (hereinafter the “July Motion for Reconsideration”). In her July Motion for Reconsideration Minkina stated that she would attempt to refinance her home in order to generate funds to satisfy the June 2018 Payment Order.  

     Judge Freniere, who presided over July 10, 2018 hearing on the July Motion for Reconsideration, acknowledged the mistaken calculation by Judge Hallal relative to the Exempt Account Withdrawals, however, counsel for RPS argued that Minkina should have requested the Court’s permission to pay taxes (sic!) on the retirement account withdrawals. RPS, through its counsel, falsely represented that Dr. Minkina could withdraw funds without taxes being withheld (Doc. 17, pages 14-20).  

    During the July 10, 2018 hearing, Judge Freniere accepted Dr. Minkina’s proposal to apply to refinance her home and set a follow up hearing of July 24, 2018 and a deadline for Minkina to submit an application to refinance. Minkina promptly filed an application to refinance and presented evidence of the same at the July 24, 2018 hearing. She also presented evidence of RPS’s inaccurate representations at the prior hearing relative to the tax withholdings on the retirement account withdrawals, however, the Court did not consider that evidence. 

    Judge Freniere set a deadline of August 28, 2018 for Dr. Minkina to close on the refinancing of her home and to pay the $79,000 Exempt Account Withdrawals previously ordered by Judge Hallal. 

    On August 27, 2018, ahead of the August 28, 2018 hearing, Dr. Minkina informed the Court that Century Bank had approved her application for refinancing and presented a copy of the bank commitment letter, but that that bank needed more time to process the loan. Judge Freniere denied Minkina’s requested continuance and on August 28, 2018 held a hearing during which she found Dr. Minkina in contempt of Court despite the evidence presented by Minkina that she got loan approval and that Judge Hallal was mistaken in his calculations of the Exempt Account Withdrawals.

   By order dated August 28, 2018, Judge Freniere ordered the incarceration of Minkina for 90 days (hereinafter the “Second Incarceration”) .

   August 29, 2018, Dr. Minkina, while in prison, retained the services of undersigned counsel and filed an emergency Chapter 13 voluntary petition with the Court that very day.   

   Following the filing of the above-captioned Chapter 13 case, Minkina was released from custody at MCI Framingham on August 30, 2018.

   Since August 30, 2018 the collection case in Norfolk Superior Court was stayed and Dr. Minkina's case is proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts.