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 New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board (Board) revoked Homer Avalos's license to practice as a clinical mental health counselor due to allegations of unprofessional conduct involving a sixteen-year-old female client. The incident in question occurred at Avalos's home office during a urinalysis test, where Avalos allegedly inappropriately touched and sexually assaulted the client. The Board received a formal complaint about this incident, leading to the issuance of a Notice of Contemplated Action (NCA) against Avalos, alleging violations of the Counseling and Therapy Practice Act and the code of ethics for counselors and therapists.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Homer Avalos): Argued that the Board improperly reweighed evidence and entered findings of fact specifically rejected by the hearing officer, failed to familiarize itself with the record before taking final action, failed to comply with the Open Meetings Act, and that there was insufficient evidence to support findings of Avalos undertaking a professional relationship while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Avalos also claimed procedural due process violations and improper ex parte communications between the hearing officer and the Board.
• Respondent (New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board): Defended the revocation of Avalos's license, asserting that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, within the Board's scope of authority, and in accordance with law. The Board argued that it had the authority to issue its own findings of fact and was not bound by the hearing officer's findings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Board improperly reweighed evidence and entered findings of fact specifically rejected by the hearing officer.
• Whether the Board failed to familiarize itself with the record prior to taking its final action.
• Whether the Board failed to comply with the Open Meetings Act.
• Whether there was insufficient evidence to support findings that Avalos undertook a professional relationship while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Whether there were procedural due process violations.
• Whether there were improper ex parte communications between the hearing officer and the Board.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Board's revocation of Avalos's license.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Cynthia A. Fry, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that the Board was not bound by the hearing officer's findings of fact under the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act (ULA) and had the authority to enter its own findings of fact. The Court also determined that the Board's actions were not improper, as it adopted all of the hearing officer's findings of fact, with one modification, and then entered additional findings. The Court rejected Avalos's arguments regarding the Open Meetings Act, procedural due process violations, and alleged ex parte communications, concluding that the Board's final order complied with the requirements of the ULA and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's findings. The Court applied a presumption in favor of the regularity of the Board's actions and found no basis for reversing the Board's final order on the grounds alleged by Avalos.