N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-1-7
History: 1953 Comp., § 67-26-7, enacted by Laws 1957, ch. 247, § 7; 1978 Comp., § 61-1-7; 1981, ch. 349, § 6; 1993, ch. 295, § 5; 2023, ch. 190, § 10.
The 2023 amendment, effective July 1, 2023, clarified that disciplinary action can also apply to applicants or unlicensed persons in addition to licensees; in Subsection A, after "findings of fact", added "and recommendations"; in Subsections B and F, after each occurrence of "licensee", added "applicant or unlicensed person"; and in Subsection G, after "A", deleted "licensee" and added "party".
The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, substituted "excusal; protection of witness and information" for "disqualification" in the catchline; substituted "any constitutional right of privacy" for "the reputation" in the first sentence of Subsection B; rewrote Subsection C; substituted "excusals for cause" for "disqualifications" in the first sentence of Subsection D; substituted "excusals" for "disqualifications" and "excused" for "disqualified" in Subsection E; and added Subsection G.
Charging board not disqualified in licensing on charge. — The board of medical examiners has exclusive jurisdiction regarding the granting and revoking of certificates admitting physicians and surgeons to practice and, in view of the fact that the statutes do not provide for disqualification of board members, proceedings before the board may not be restrained merely by reason of the fact that the board itself initiated the proceedings against a physician and is therefore an interested party. Seidenberg v. N.M. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 1969-NMSC-028, 80 N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469.
Zeal in performing public duty does not disqualify. Seidenberg v. N.M. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 1969-NMSC-028, 80 N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469.
Due process violated where hearing conducted by prejudiced tribunal. — Any utilization of this section which has the effect of allowing an administrative hearing, punitive in nature, to be conducted by a patently prejudiced tribunal must necessarily violate the due process provisions of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States constitution and N.M. Const., art. II, § 18. Reid v. N.M. Bd. of Exam'rs in Optometry, 1979-NMSC-005, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198.
One peremptory disqualification allowed. — Interpretation of this section by the manufactured homes committee to allow only one peremptory disqualification of a committee member at a hearing was correct. Rex, Inc. v. Manufactured Hous. Comm., 1995-NMSC-023, 119 N.M. 500, 892 P.2d 947.
Peremptory excusals must be exercised prior to the first of sequential hearings in a disciplinary action. — Where, following the receipt of five patient complaints regarding petitioner, the New Mexico medical board (board) initiated two disciplinary actions against petitioner, each based on the complaints filed against him, a notice of summary suspension and a notice of contemplated action, both of which were assigned the same case number, and where petitioner requested hearings as to each notice, and where, following the summary suspension hearing, the hearing officer issued proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending suspension of petitioner's medical license, and where the board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation of suspension, and where a second hearing was scheduled on the notice of contemplated action before the same hearing officer who presided over the summary suspension hearing, and where petitioner filed a motion for change of hearing officer, in which he stated that he was electing to exercise his right to a peremptory excusal of the assigned hearing officer, and where the hearing officer filed an order denying petitioner's motion on the basis that the peremptory excusal was not timely, stating that a peremptory excusal was not available to petitioner because NMSA 1978, § 61-1-7(C), provides for peremptory excusal at least twenty days prior to the first hearing, and where the board affirmed the hearing officer's order denying petitioner's motion for change of hearing officer, and where the contemplated action hearing was held as scheduled, resulting in the hearing officer's report recommending that petitioner's license be revoked, and where the board adopted the hearing officer's findings and ultimately issued its decision and order revoking petitioner's license, the board did not err in affirming the hearing officer's order denying petitioner's motion for change of hearing officer, because in light of the facts of the case and the plain language of the statute, the board's interpretation of § 61-1-7(C), that peremptory excusals must be exercised prior to the first of a series of hearings since the notices and hearings, together, constituted the disciplinary action against petitioner, was reasonable and representative of the obvious spirit of the statute. Rauth v. N.M. Medical Bd., 2023-NMCA-059, cert. denied.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 51 Am. Jur. 2d Licenses and Permits §§ 60, 61.
53 C.J.S. Licenses §§ 43, 54, 55, 59.