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

• A licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor was accused by a sixteen-year-old female client of sexually assaulting her during a visit to his home office. The client alleged that during a supposed "stress relaxation test," the counselor touched her inappropriately. The counselor denied these allegations, and although criminal charges were never filed, a complaint was lodged with the New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board, leading to disciplinary proceedings against him (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court, Barbara J. Vigil, Judge: Affirmed the Board's order on the basis of "substantial evidence in the record."
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the District Court's decision in an unpublished memorandum opinion (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that his constitutional due process rights were violated due to the lack of personal notice about the Board meeting where his case was decided. He also contended that the Board's final order was unsupported by substantial evidence and that the hearing officer's findings, which were more favorable to him, should have been given deference (paras 10-11).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Board violated the petitioner's constitutional due process rights by failing to provide personal notice of the meeting where his license revocation was decided (para 11).
• Whether the Board's final order revoking the petitioner's license was supported by substantial evidence, considering the hearing officer's findings (para 10).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board's decisions, vacated the Board's final order, and remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision (para 21).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Charles W. Daniels, with Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Richard C. Bosson, Justice Edward L. Chávez, and Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring, found that the Board violated the petitioner's due process rights by not providing personal notice of the meeting where his case was decided. The Court emphasized that professional licenses are protected property interests under the Constitution, requiring due process protections including notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation. The Court determined that notice by publication was insufficient in this case, as the petitioner was entitled to personal notice of the Board meeting that would decide on the suspension or revocation of his license. The Court did not address the petitioner's remaining claims due to its decision on the due process violation (paras 12-20).