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 veterinarian performed surgery on a horse, which later developed complications and was euthanized. The horse's owner filed a complaint with the New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine, alleging violations of the Veterinary Practice Act (VPA). The Board found the veterinarian violated certain provisions of the VPA and imposed disciplinary measures, including a requirement to pay $22,021.83 in costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings (paras 1, 3-5).

Procedural History

• New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine, November 11, 2002: Found the veterinarian violated the VPA, imposed probation, and ordered payment of $22,021.83 in costs (para 5).
• District Court, December 16, 2004: Reversed some of the Board's findings, limited recoverable costs to $1,669.11, and remanded the case for reassessment of costs (paras 5-6).
• Court of Appeals, 2006-NMCA-069: Held that costs under Section 61-1-4(G) were not limited to those in Rule 1-054 NMRA and remanded the due process issue to the district court (paras 1, 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Petitioner (Veterinarian): Argued that costs recoverable under Section 61-1-4(G) should be limited to those authorized by Rule 1-054 NMRA. Contended that certain costs, such as those for the hearing officer, hearing venue, and Board members' per diem and mileage, were improper and violated due process (paras 2, 10, 23, 26, 33).
• Appellee-Respondent (Board): Asserted that "all costs" under Section 61-1-4(G) included all expenses associated with the disciplinary proceedings. Claimed that the district court could review costs for arbitrariness but that Rule 1-054 was not determinative (paras 2, 12-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether costs recoverable under Section 61-1-4(G) of the Uniform Licensing Act are limited to those authorized by Rule 1-054 NMRA.
• Whether the assessment of costs for the hearing officer, hearing venue, and Board members' per diem and mileage violates due process.
• Whether the Board's assessment of transcription and expert witness costs was proper (paras 2, 10, 21-23, 26, 33).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that costs recoverable under Section 61-1-4(G) are not limited to those in Rule 1-054 but that Rule 1-054 and Section 61-32-24(F) provide guidance.
• The Court affirmed the recoverability of transcription and expert witness costs.
• The Court held that costs for the hearing officer and hearing venue violated due process and could not be recovered.
• The Court held that Board members' per diem and mileage costs were not recoverable under Section 61-1-4(G) (paras 2, 20, 35).

Reasons

Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Minzner, Maes, and Bosson JJ. concurring):

The Court interpreted Section 61-1-4(G) to mean that costs recoverable in disciplinary proceedings are not strictly limited to those listed in Rule 1-054 NMRA but that Rule 1-054 and Section 61-32-24(F) provide guidance. Costs not explicitly listed in these provisions must be reviewed for arbitrariness, substantial evidence, or legal compliance (paras 12-16).

The Court found that transcription costs were recoverable because they were explicitly authorized by Rule 1-054 and Section 61-32-24(F) and were necessary for the proceedings (paras 21-22). Similarly, expert witness costs were deemed recoverable as they were not cumulative and were supported by evidence (paras 23-25).

However, the Court held that requiring the veterinarian to pay for the hearing officer and hearing venue costs violated due process, as it could create a perception of bias and chill the defense of licensees. The Court emphasized that these costs are akin to judicial system expenses, which are typically borne by the state (paras 26-32).

Finally, the Court ruled that Board members' per diem and mileage costs were explicitly required to be paid from fees collected under the VPA and could not be assessed to the veterinarian (paras 33-34).