This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The appellant, a dentist, was convicted of four felony counts for making or permitting false claims for Medicaid reimbursement related to dental services provided at nursing homes. Following these convictions, the New Mexico Board of Dentistry revoked his dental license, citing the convictions and a lack of rehabilitation to warrant public trust (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the New Mexico Board of Dentistry's decision to revoke the appellant's dental license (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that a conviction alone, without proof of the underlying conduct, is insufficient to revoke a professional license. He also claimed inadequate notice of the charges, lack of substantial evidence for findings of unprofessional conduct and non-rehabilitation, and improper denial of his motion to supplement the record with evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal proceedings (paras 6, 18, 25, 38).
- Respondent: Asserted that under New Mexico law, a felony conviction itself is a sufficient basis for license revocation, provided the licensee is not rehabilitated. The Board also argued that its notice and findings were adequate and supported by substantial evidence (paras 7-8, 18, 25).
Legal Issues
- Whether a felony conviction alone, without proof of the underlying conduct, is sufficient to revoke a professional license.
- Whether the notice of contemplated action provided by the Board was adequate.
- Whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of unprofessional conduct and non-rehabilitation.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's motion to supplement the record with evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal proceedings.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the revocation of the appellant's dental license (para 44).
Reasons
Per Montgomery J. (Ransom and Wilson JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Convictions for License Revocation: The Court held that under the Dental Act and the Criminal Offender Employment Act (COEA), a felony conviction alone is a sufficient basis for license revocation, provided the licensee is not rehabilitated. The statutes reflect legislative intent to protect public trust and confidence in licensed professionals. The Board was entitled to rely on the convictions without requiring proof of the underlying conduct (paras 7-16).
Adequacy of Notice: The Court found that the Board's notice of contemplated action, which cited the felony convictions as the basis for revocation, was sufficient under the Uniform Licensing Act. The notice adequately informed the appellant of the charges and evidence against him, allowing him to prepare a defense (paras 18-24).
Substantial Evidence: The Court determined that the Board's findings of unprofessional conduct and non-rehabilitation were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony and documentation of the appellant's improper billing practices, grossly incompetent dental services, and lack of rehabilitation. The Board was not required to rely solely on expert testimony, as it had the expertise to assess professional standards (paras 25-34).
Denial of Motion to Supplement the Record: The Court upheld the district court's denial of the appellant's motion to supplement the record with evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal proceedings. The convictions were final and presumptively valid, and the Board was not authorized to collaterally attack them. The appellant's remedy, if any, lay in challenging the convictions in the criminal court (paras 38-42).
Harmless Error: The Court dismissed the appellant's claim that references to the grand jury indictment were prejudicial, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence independent of the indictment (paras 35-37).