Title: Seidenberg v. New Mexico Board of Medical Exam.

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

452 P.2d 469 (1969) 80 N.M. 135 Leonard SEIDENBERG, M.D., and Louise Geng Seidenberg, M.D., Petitioners-Appellees, v. The NEW MEXICO BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellant. No. 8720. Supreme Court of New Mexico. March 10, 1969. Rehearing Denied April 15, 1969. *470 Marron, Houk & McKinnon, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellant. Bigbee & Byrd, F. Joel Roth, Santa Fe, for petitioners-appellees. TACKETT, Justice. These consolidated causes are before us on an appeal by the Board of Medical Examiners, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," which, after a very lengthy hearing, revoked the licenses of both appellees to practice medicine in the State of New Mexico. The charges and hearings were conducted under the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act, §§ 67-26-1 through 67-26-28, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. Appellees appealed the decision of the Board to the District Court of Santa Fe County, the Honorable J.V. Gallegos, by designation, presided. After considering the record of the proceedings before the Board, the trial court entered its decision and judgment reversing the decision of the Board, on the grounds that the evidence before the Board was not clear and convincing; that it was not supported by substantial evidence; and that, in revoking the licenses of appellees, the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Under point I, appellant contends: The scope of the trial court's review of an administrative board's decision is set forth in § 67-26-20, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.: We said in Hardin v. State Tax Commission, 78 N.M. 477 at 478, 432 P.2d 833, at 834 (1967): See also, S.I.C. Finance-Loans of Menaul, Inc. v. Upton, 75 N.M. 780, 411 P.2d 755 (1966). In Llano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Company, 75 N.M. 7 at 11-12, 399 P.2d 646 at 649 (1964), it is there stated: See also, State ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Zinn, 72 N.M. 29, 380 P.2d 182 (1963); Deaconess Hospital v. Washington State Highway Commission, 66 Wash. 2d 378, 403 P.2d 54 at 70 (1965). In the case before us, appellees were charged with and found guilty of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct because of fraudulent misrepresentations, and evidence, to be deemed substantial, must have been clear and convincing to justify the Board in its findings of guilty of six out of the seven counts. In Lumpkins v. McPhee, 59 N.M. 442, 286 P.2d 299 (1955), it is noted that where fraud is charged, the evidence in support of a finding of fraud is not deemed substantial "if it is not clear, strong and convincing." First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Lesser & Lewinson, 10 N.M. 700, 65 P. 179 (1901); Shaw v. Board of Education, 38 N.M. 298, 31 P.2d 993, 93 A.L.R. 432 (1934); Frear v. Roberts, 51 N.M. 137, 179 P.2d 998 (1947). The court below was limited in its review to determining whether the order of the Board was unreasonable or unlawful; whether the order of the Board was supported by substantial evidence; and, generally, whether the action of the Board was within the scope of its authority. Based upon the record in the instant case, we hold that the Board's actions were neither unreasonable, arbitrary nor capricious, and that the Board's decision is based on clear, convincing and substantial evidence. Under point II appellees raise a constitutional question; that the proceedings of the Board denied appellees due process of law and violated the governing statutes as to the method of appointment and additional qualifications contained in § 67-5-1, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. and that such appointments are contrary to and in violation of Art. VII, § 2, and Art. III, § 1, New Mexico Constitution, and thereby do not give the Board jurisdiction over appellees to suspend or revoke their licenses to practice medicine in New Mexico. The Board exists pursuant to §§ 67-5-1 through 67-5-26, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., is established under § 67-5-1, supra, and consists of five members appointed by the *472 governor from a list of five nominees for each position. Appellees do not challenge the right of the legislature to create a Board of Medical Examiners and to vest authority in the Board to institute appropriate disciplinary proceedings for the revocation or suspension of a physician's license to practice medicine. They do complain, however, that the statute creating the Board has usurped the governor's power of appointment of members of the Board by restricting the governor's choice to nominees of the New Mexico Medical Society. In accordance with § 67-5-1, supra, the nominees submitted by the Medical Society must be "qualified." Appellees rely on State ex rel. Swope v. Mechem, 58 N.M. 1 at 6, 265 P.2d 336 at 339 (1954), wherein we quoted from 42 Am.Jur., Public Officers, § 94 at 952: We distinguish this from the instant case in that we are not faced with a constitutional delegation to the executive of the power of appointment to the Board. Here, the legislature delegated such power to the executive and may establish qualifications for Board members. New Mexico Constitution, Art. VII, § 2(B), (1967 Pocket Supp.) provides: It is to be noted that the Board appointed by the governor has the power to grant licenses to qualified physicians to practice medicine, yet appellees contend that the Board could not revoke their licenses to practice. This is incongruous and not a tenable position in so far as appellees are concerned. See, Annot. 65 A.L.R.2d 662 at 682. The constitutionality of a statute is presumed. Doubts concerning its constitutionality are to be resolved in favor of legality and, before a statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear that it offends applicable constitutional provisions. See, Community Public Service Co. v. New Mexico Public Service Comm'n, 76 N.M. 314, 414 P.2d 675 (1966); Silver City Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Board of Regents, 75 N.M. 106, 401 P.2d 95 (1965), and cases cited therein. In the Annot. 97 A.L.R.2d 361 at 373, commenting on Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638, 298 P.2d 316 (1956), we find the following: The governor is obligated to appoint to the Board nominees submitted by the New Mexico Medical Society, and only the governor has this prerogative. In Asplund v. Alarid, 29 N.M. 129, 219 P. 786 (1923), this court said that, in determining the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, the presumption is that the legislature has performed its duty and kept within the bounds fixed by the constitution, and that the judiciary will, if possible, give effect to the legislative intent, unless it *473 clearly appears to be in conflict with the constitution. It is needless to cite the many cases from other jurisdictions; however, contrary to appellees' contentions, see Annot. 97 A.L.R. 2d 1210 at 1221, where, in discussing Prosterman v. Tennessee State Board of Dental Examiners, 168 Tenn. 16, 73 S.W.2d 687 (1934), we find the following: Appellees further contend that the Board, as created under § 67-5-1, supra, is prejudicial and discriminatory as to appellees and denies them due process of law. It is alleged that the allegations in the affidavit of disqualification were not rebutted by the Board and the Board failed to disclaim any prejudice; that prejudice is shown; that appellees have been denied due process of law and equal protection of the law. The Board is the one tribunal vested with power to revoke a doctor's license, just as the Supreme Court of New Mexico is the only body with power to disbar a lawyer. In State ex rel. Yuhas v. Board of Medical Examiners, 135 Mont. 381, 339 P.2d 981 (1959), it was held that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the granting and revoking of certificates admitting physicians and surgeons to practice and, in view of the fact 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 was, therefore, an interested party. See 42 Am.Jur., Public Administrative Law, § 21 at 312; and Board of Medical Examiners v. Steward, 203 Md. 574, 102 A.2d 248 (1954). The fact that the charges are made by the same body which tries the issues does not, in itself, operate as a disqualification. Neither does zeal in the performance of a public duty disqualify. 1 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 64, at 861; New Jersey State Board of Optometrists v. Nemitz, 21 N.J. Super. 18, 90 A.2d 740 (1952). In Brinkley v. Hassig, 83 F.2d 351 (10th Cir.1936), it was held that disqualification will not be permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises, although a disqualified member may not act if the law provides for substitution of personnel on the board or court, or if another tribunal exists to which resort may be had. Appellees' contentions are not meritorious. In the notice of contemplated action and throughout these proceedings, the Board followed the wording as required by the Uniform Licensing Act, and particularly § 67-26-4, supra. Also, there has been substantial compliance with § 5-6-17, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. The record in the instant case supports the Board's decision by clear and convincing evidence and the decision of the Board is neither unreasonable, arbitrary nor capricious. Appellees, as found by the Board, were guilty of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct and the licenses issued to appellees by the Board should be revoked. We hold that the trial judge substituted his judgment for the judgment of the Board; therefore, the decision of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to affirm the decision of the Board. It is so ordered. COMPTON, and CARMODY, JJ., concur.