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

• Dr. Gardner sought to prevent the New Mexico Board of Dental Health (the Board) from enforcing a decision and default judgment that revoked his dental license due to allegations of practicing dentistry while his license was suspended. The Board had issued a notice of contemplated action (NCA) to Dr. Gardner, which was returned as "REFUSED." Dr. Gardner did not request a hearing within the statutory period, leading to the revocation of his license. He contended that he had not been duly served with the NCA and that his due process rights were violated (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Dr. Gardner's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Board's enforcement of the license revocation (para 7).
• New Mexico Court of Appeals: Affirmed the district court's decision (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Dr. Gardner): Argued that he had not been duly served with the NCA, his due process rights were violated, and the Board should be enjoined from enforcing the default order revoking his license (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee (New Mexico Board of Dental Healthcare): Contended that Dr. Gardner had not made an adequate showing for the requested relief and that their actions were in conformity with the Uniform Licensing Act, which allows for action to be taken if a licensee refuses to accept an NCA and fails to request a hearing (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Dr. Gardner's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Board's enforcement of the license revocation (para 7).
• Whether the district court erred in granting the Board's counterclaim for enforcement of the final administrative action in D-18-61-COM (para 11).
• Whether Dr. Gardner's failure to file a statement of appellate issues should result in the dismissal of his administrative appeal from the decision in D-18-61-COM (para 13).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny Dr. Gardner's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and to grant the Board's counterclaim for enforcement of the license revocation (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Jane B. Yohalem, found that Dr. Gardner's arguments were unpersuasive. The court noted that Dr. Gardner had been properly served under the Uniform Licensing Act, as refusal to accept an NCA is tantamount to receipt. The court also observed that Dr. Gardner's license had been revoked in a separate proceeding (D-18-61-COM), which affected his ability to show entitlement to injunctive relief. Furthermore, the court rejected Dr. Gardner's argument regarding the nonfinality of the order in D-101-CV-2019-02207, noting that the district court had indeed entered a written order denying his post-judgment motion. The court also dismissed Dr. Gardner's claim that he was effectively denied the right to appeal, stating that the constitutional right to appeal does not entitle a party to disregard procedural rules (paras 1-14).