Petitioner Sandra Brown, DVM, appealed an October 2017 decision by the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) suspending her license to practice veterinary medicine for six months and further prohibiting her, following the six-month suspension and until December 31, 2021, from dispensing, possessing, or administering controlled substances (other than euthanasia solution) in her practice. On appeal, she argued the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction to discipline her for violating the Controlled Drug Act because the Board was not one of the agencies statutorily authorized to enforce that act. She also argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to subject her practice to post-hearing inspections. 'Although we need not decide the full scope of the Board’s jurisdiction to discipline a veterinarian for the violation of 'all laws,' the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the Board had subject matter jurisdiction to discipline petitioner for violating the Controlled Drug Act.
Within What Number Of Years Must A Veterinary Premise License Be Renewed
Furthermore, the Court found documents in the certified record suggested that petitioner agreed, at the very least implicitly, to the inspections as part of a settlement agreement with the Board. Therefore, the Board had jurisdiction to subject her practice to post-hearing inspections. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us.
Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. On the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Board of Veterinary Medicine No. 2017-0729 APPEAL OF SANDRA BROWN, DVM (New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine) Argued: October 11, 2018 Opinion Issued: November 1, 2018 Steiner Law Office, PLLC, of Concord (R. James Steiner and Michael A.
Free Download California Veterinary Medicine Practice Act Pdf Programs Free
Chen on the brief, and Mr. Steiner orally), for the petitioner. MacDonald, attorney general (Thomas Broderick, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the respondent. The petitioner, Sandra Brown, DVM, appeals an October 2017 decision by the respondent, the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board), suspending her license to practice veterinary medicine for six months and further prohibiting her, following the six-month suspension and until December 31, 2021, from dispensing, possessing, or administering controlled substances (other than euthanasia solution) in her practice.
On appeal, she argues that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction to discipline her for violating the Controlled Drug Act, see RSA ch. 318-B (2017 & Supp. 2017), because the Board is not one of the agencies statutorily authorized to enforce that act. She also asserts that the Board lacked jurisdiction to subject her practice to post-hearing inspections. Although the petitioner makes other appellate arguments, we decline to address them substantively.
Those arguments are not properly before us because, to the extent that the petitioner raised them before the Board, she did so, for the first time, in an untimely motion for reconsideration, which is insufficient to preserve them for our review. See RSA 541:3,:4 (2007); cf. In the Matter of Sweatt & Sweatt, 170 N.H. 414, 424 (2017) (concluding that, “because the respondent did not raise his appellate arguments in the trial court or in a timely motion for reconsideration, they are not preserved for our review”).
The Board found, or the certified record supports, the following facts. In May and June of 2013, the Board received complaints from two of the petitioner’s former employees alleging, among other things, that she improperly managed medication and equipment. After investigating the complaints, the Board commenced an adjudicatory proceeding. See RSA 332-B:15 (2017).