On November 12, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a lifetime suspension of Pamela Kendall’s driver’s license after she refused a chemical test following an operating-under-the-influence arrest. The decision, issued as a Rule 23.0 summary memorandum in Kendall v. Division of Insurance Board of Appeal (25-P-1451), underscores the mandatory nature of the statutory penalty for drivers with multiple prior OUIL dispositions.
Kendall was arrested on September 20, 2018. She refused the offered blood or breath test. The Registry of Motor Vehicles reviewed her record, found three earlier OUIL guilty findings (1991, 1993, and 2005), and imposed the lifetime suspension required by G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1) for anyone previously convicted of or assigned to a program for three or more OUIL violations who refuses testing. After a bench trial she was acquitted of the 2018 charge. A District Court judge later denied her request to restore the license, concluding that restoration would likely endanger public safety. She did not seek certiorari review of that denial.
She then appealed the registrar’s suspension to the Division of Insurance Board of Appeal. The board affirmed, relying on the Registry driving history and Board of Probation records. Superior Court judgment on the pleadings upheld the board, and the Appeals Court agreed.
The court rejected Kendall’s main arguments. It found substantial evidence supporting the three prior qualifying dispositions and held that an assignment to a § 24D alcohol education or treatment program counts the same as a conviction under the plain language of the statute and existing precedent. Alleged inconsistencies in the record (including an amendment of the 2018 charge) were for the board to resolve, and residual evidence still supported its findings. Finally, the court ruled that concerns about breathalyzer reliability were irrelevant: the question before the board was solely whether the registrar properly applied the refusal statute, not the reasonableness of the refusal or the admissibility of test results at trial.
The result is a straightforward application of the statute’s bright-line lifetime suspension for repeat offenders who refuse chemical testing. The decision is non-precedential under Rule 23.0 but illustrates the limited scope of judicial review of these administrative license actions.