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

• The Plaintiff, a licensed dental hygienist, was informed by the New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care’s Dental Hygienist Committee that her file lacked documentation for a Local Anesthesia Permit in New Mexico. Despite her belief and evidence that she was certified, including having completed relevant coursework and being licensed in other states, the Committee referred her case for potential disciplinary action. The Plaintiff sought legal representation from the Defendants for this matter, during which advice and actions were taken that the Plaintiff later contested as legal malpractice among other claims (paras 4-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her malpractice claims against Defendants, contending that expert testimony was not required to establish a breach of standard of care, and that the district court failed to consider the whole record. Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in its handling of her fraud and misrepresentation claims and in refusing her requests to audio-record hearings (paras 1, 11-16, 18-44).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the Plaintiff failed to comply with procedural requirements in opposing motions for summary judgment, lacked necessary expert testimony to support her claims, and did not demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged legal malpractice, fraud, and misrepresentation (paras 2-3, 10-15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Plaintiff's malpractice claims against Defendants without requiring expert testimony to establish a breach of standard of care.
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Plaintiff's fraud and misrepresentation claims due to alleged genuine issues of material fact.
• Whether the district court properly refused the Plaintiff's requests to audio-record hearings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to comply with procedural requirements for opposing summary judgment motions, specifically in not properly contesting Defendants' statement of undisputed facts and not providing necessary expert testimony to establish a breach of standard of care (paras 2-3, 21-26, 32-39).
  The Court determined that expert testimony was required to establish a breach of standard of care in legal malpractice claims, except in cases where negligence is within the common knowledge of laypersons. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims did not fall into this exception (paras 32-39).
  Regarding the Plaintiff's fraud and misrepresentation claims, the Court found no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment, noting the Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that Defendants' advice was given with the intent to deceive (paras 40-43).
  The Court did not find merit in the Plaintiff's argument regarding the refusal to allow audio recording of hearings, noting the absence of authority requiring such recordings when stenographic records are taken (para 44).