AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A patient sought chiropractic treatment from the practitioner after experiencing neck pain. Following neck manipulations during multiple sessions, the patient developed symptoms including dizziness, vomiting, and difficulty walking. Despite these symptoms, the practitioner continued to manipulate the patient’s neck, including at his home, without proper clinical equipment or staff. The patient later suffered a stroke caused by a vertebral artery dissection and required hospitalization and surgery (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners: Suspended the practitioner’s license for six months and required continuing education, finding gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, and conduct unbecoming of a chiropractor (paras 6, 20).
• District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed the Board’s decision, holding that it was unsupported by substantial evidence (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners): Argued that its decision to suspend the practitioner’s license was supported by substantial evidence and that the district court erred by conducting a de novo review instead of a limited review for substantial evidence (para 7).
• Appellee (Practitioner): Contended that the Board’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence, that the Board improperly relied on its own expertise without sufficient expert testimony, and that his actions did not violate the standard of care (paras 10, 17).

Legal Issues

• Was the Board’s decision to suspend the practitioner’s license supported by substantial evidence?
• Is expert testimony required to establish a violation of the standard of care in disciplinary proceedings?
• Did the Board exceed its statutory authority or violate due process by relying on its own expertise?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s decision and reinstated the Board’s order to suspend the practitioner’s license (para 28).

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Franchini C.J., Baca, Serna, and McKinnon JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that expert testimony is not required to establish a violation of the standard of care in disciplinary proceedings, as the Board is composed of experts qualified to evaluate evidence and apply professional standards (paras 11-13).
• The Court clarified that while the Board may rely on its expertise, its findings must still be supported by substantial evidence in the record (para 15).
• The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the practitioner repeatedly manipulated the patient’s neck after the onset of symptoms, failed to recognize signs of vertebral artery dissection, and treated the patient in a non-clinical setting without proper equipment or staff (paras 20-25).
• The Court determined that the practitioner’s actions, including manipulating the patient’s neck over her objections, constituted gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, and conduct detrimental to the public interest (paras 24-26).
• Although one finding (failure to insist on medical attention) lacked substantial evidence, the Court concluded that this did not prejudice the practitioner’s substantial rights, as the remaining findings supported the Board’s decision (paras 18-27).

Special Concurrence by McKinnon J.:

• Justice McKinnon expressed concern that due process requires expert testimony to establish professional incompetence. However, he agreed with the majority that substantial evidence, including expert testimony, supported the Board’s decision in this case (para 30).