Appeal of Sandra Brown, DVM, 171 N.H. 468

Sandra Brown, DVM, faced Board of Veterinary Medicine disciplinary proceedings after complaints by former employees about medication and equipment management.
The Board previously imposed remedial measures in Sept. 2015, including announced or unannounced practice inspections for four years (records suggest Brown consented via settlement).
Inspections in 2016 (including by the Board of Pharmacy) led to a new adjudicatory proceeding; the Board found multiple violations including use/dispensing of expired medications, poor record-keeping, sanitary deficiencies, and inaccurate controlled-drug records.
The Board concluded Brown violated RSA chapter 318-B (Controlled Drug Act) and RSA chapter 332-B professional standards, suspended her license for six months, and barred her from possessing/dispensing/administering controlled substances (except euthanasia solution) until Dec. 31, 2021, while allowing prescriptions via outside pharmacies.
Brown filed timely rehearing and appeal; she raised (first in an untimely second rehearing) that the Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the Controlled Drug Act and that post-hearing inspections were unauthorized.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Board had jurisdiction to discipline a veterinarian for Controlled Drug Act violations and to impose inspections; other untimely arguments were not considered on appeal.

Issue	Brown's Argument	Board's Argument	Held
Whether the Board had subject-matter jurisdiction to discipline Brown for violating the Controlled Drug Act	The Controlled Drug Act enforcement lies with the Board of Pharmacy; the veterinary Board cannot sanction a practitioner for alleged violations of that Act	The Veterinary Practice Act authorizes the Board to discipline licensees for unprofessional conduct, including violating laws bearing on public health and safety; nothing in the Controlled Drug Act precludes discipline by the veterinary Board	The Court held the Board had jurisdiction to discipline Brown for Controlled Drug Act violations; such violations fall within unprofessional conduct under RSA chapter 332-B
Whether the Board had authority to subject Brown’s practice to inspections and rely on inspection findings	The Board lacked authority to impose post-hearing inspections and thus improperly relied on inspection evidence	The Board’s disciplinary powers include limiting a license; inspections were part of prior remedial limitation (and likely consented to by Brown), and inspections are a permissible restriction	The Court held the Board could subject the practice to inspections and properly relied on inspection findings

Route 12 Books & Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569 (2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
Appeal of Huston, 150 N.H. 410 (2003) (standard of review for agency decisions under RSA chapter 541)
Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers’ Rights, 162 N.H. 245 (2011) (agencies have only the jurisdiction conferred by statute)
In the Matter of Bloomfield, 166 N.H. 475 (2014) (agency findings of fact presumed lawful and reasonable)
Robinson v. N.H. Real Estate Comm’n, 157 N.H. 729 (2008) (statutory interpretation principles; plain-meaning rule)
In the Matter of Sweatt & Sweatt, 170 N.H. 414 (2017) (untimely rehearing arguments are not preserved on appeal)