This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Mills v. New Mexico page 1 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Carolyn MILLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO STATE BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee. No. 23701. May 30, 1997. Psychologist sought judicial review of administrative determination by state Board of Psychologist Examiners. On Board's motion, the District Court of Santa Fe County, James A. Hall, D.J., issued order quashing writ of certiorari. Psychologist appealed. On transfer from the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, Baca, J., held that: (1) absence of statutory basis for review of Board's decision to impose examination requirement adequately legitimated psychologist's request for writ of certiorari; (2) due process implications of imposing examination requirement without hearing were ripe for judicial review; (3) due process protections applied to any action by Board which might have resulted in deprivation of psychologist's license to practice; (4) remand was required to determine whether application of examination requirement to psychologist was rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose; (5) procedural due process required that psychologist be provided with notice and opportunity to be heard prior to implementation of examination requirement; and (6) psychologist was entitled to hearing establishing rational justification for Board's decision. Remanded for administrative action. Jacobvitz, Thuma & Matthews, P.C., Marian Matthews, Albuquerque, for Petitioner-Appellant. Michael Dickman, Santa Fe, for Respondent-Appellee. OPINION BACA, Justice. I 1. This is an appeal from a district court Order Quashing Writ of Certiorari to review the actions of the New Mexico State Board of Psychologist Examiners (the Board) pertaining to Dr. Carolyn Mills (Mills). Mills sought review of the Board's requirement that she take and pass an oral examination in order to reinstate her license to practice psychology following a brief retirement. Mills questioned the Board's imposition of the oral examination requirement, raising concerns about both substantive and procedural due process. The district court quashed the Motion for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary requirement of an oral examination and because the court concluded that the oral examination requirement did not implicate due process. Mills filed a timely appeal. The Court of Appeals transferred the case to this Court pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-14(C) (Repl.Pamp.1996), because the case involves significant questions of law under the Constitutions of New Mexico and the United States. We remand the case to the Board, ordering the Board to provide Mills with a reinstatement proceeding which complies with the requirements of due process....
View Full Document
- Spring '11