Medical Board Defense

Our attorneys have extensive experience representing physicians and other healthcare providers in administrative actions initiated by licensure boards, including the New Mexico Medical Board and the Board of Nursing. They advise clients regarding the investigative process and the strategic considerations involved in resolving matters before licensure boards issue formal administrative complaints, typically referred to as Notices of Contemplated Action.

Our attorneys have defended healthcare providers at formal hearings under the Uniform Licensing Act (ULA) and have successfully appealed adverse licensure decisions. They recently pursued an appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court on behalf of a provider who held approximately 40 medical licenses. One of the central questions presented was whether an honest mistake on a license renewal application constituted a “misrepresentation” under the Medical Practice Act (MPA) and applicable Medical Board regulations—an issue of first impression in New Mexico. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed certiorari following oral argument, leaving the question unresolved by the judiciary.

Although the Court did not issue a decision on the merits, the case significantly influenced how the Medical Board defines “adverse action” under its regulations. The Board now interprets reportable adverse actions to include nearly any conduct that results in termination of employment, including non-clinical conduct and conduct unrelated to clinical privileges. Under the current regulatory framework, even certain terminations without cause may qualify as reportable adverse actions in New Mexico.

In another matter, our attorneys appealed an adverse decision of the Medical Board to the district court on due process grounds. The district court reversed and remanded the case, concluding that the proceeding conducted under the ULA was fundamentally unfair.

Administrative proceedings under the ULA raise significant due process considerations. In many instances, the administrative body that votes to initiate prosecution is also responsible for reviewing the evidence and issuing final disciplinary action. Providers must therefore carefully evaluate whether to proceed to a formal hearing and remain vigilant regarding due process protections throughout the administrative process.

Given our attorneys’ experience before administrative boards, they understand the complexities involved in advising providers who hold licenses in multiple jurisdictions. When providers face reportable adverse actions, they often encounter a cascading cycle of reporting obligations across multiple states. This dynamic presents unique strategic challenges and can be difficult to manage without experienced representation.

An adverse action in one state frequently triggers simultaneous reporting requirements in others. Those reports may prompt additional investigations or proceedings, which must then be reported again across jurisdictions. Without swift and strategic intervention, this cycle of administrative investigation and potential discipline can persist for months or even years.

If you hold professional licenses in multiple jurisdictions and are confronting potential reporting obligations, contact our attorneys to discuss their experience in this area. Numerous strategic options may be available when determining how to manage or stop the cycle of self-perpetuating reportable adverse actions.