NRS
630.352 Disposition of charges: Adjudication by Board; dismissal of
charges or required disciplinary action for violations; private reprimands
prohibited; issuance of order imposing discipline; orders imposing discipline
deemed public records.
1. Any member of the Board, other than a
member of an investigative committee of the Board who participated in any
determination regarding a complaint or the filing of a formal charging document
in the matter or any member serving on a panel of the Board at the hearing of
the matter, may participate in an adjudication to obtain the final order of the
Board. At the adjudication, the Board shall consider any findings of fact and
conclusions of law submitted after the hearing and shall allow:
(a) Counsel for the Board to present a
disciplinary recommendation and argument in support of the disciplinary
recommendation subject to the provisions of NRS
622A.200 and 622A.210; and
(b) The respondent or counsel of the respondent
to present a disciplinary recommendation and argument in support of the
disciplinary recommendation.
Ê The Board
may limit the time within which the parties may make their arguments and
statements.
2. At the conclusion of the presentations
of the parties, the Board shall deliberate and may by a majority vote impose
discipline based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
presentations of the parties.
3. If, in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Board, hearing officer or panel of the Board determines
that no violation has occurred, the Board shall dismiss the charges, in
writing, and notify the respondent that the charges have been dismissed.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 5, if the Board finds that a violation has occurred, it shall by
order take one or more of the following actions:
(a) Place the person on probation for a specified
period on any of the conditions specified in the order;
(b) Administer a written public reprimand to the
person;
(c) Limit the person’s practice or exclude one or
more specified branches of medicine from his or her practice;
(d) Suspend the person’s license for a specified
period or until further order of the Board;
(e) Revoke the person’s license;
(f) Require the person to participate in a
program to correct an alcohol or other substance use disorder or any other
impairment;
(g) Require supervision of the person’s practice;
(h) Impose a fine not to exceed $10,000 for each
violation;
(i) Require the person to perform community
service without compensation;
(j) Require the person to take a physical or
mental examination or an examination testing his or her competence; and
(k) Require the person to fulfill certain
training or educational requirements.
5. If the Board finds that the respondent
has violated the provisions of NRS
439B.425, the Board shall suspend the respondent’s license for a specified
period or until further order of the Board.
6. The Board shall not administer a
private reprimand if the Board finds that a violation has occurred.
7. Within 30 days after the conclusion of
the adjudication by the Board, the Board shall issue a final order, certified
by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Board, that imposes discipline and
incorporates the findings of fact and conclusions of law obtained from the
hearing. An order that imposes discipline and the findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting that order are public records.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
826; A 1985,
2243; 1989,
664; 1991,
2438; 1993,
2597; 1997,
685; 2001,
770; 2001
Special Session, 153, 161;
2003,
3436; 2009,
2971; 2017,
2847; 2019,
983; 2023,
429; 2025,
1630)
Notes of Decisions
Whitehead v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 878 P.2d 913 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Although we review the determinations of the Board and the Commission in accordance with the higher standards imposed on them by law and court rule, the fact that we do not engage in independent review is evidence that our review is deferential.”
Minton v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 881 P.2d 1339 (Nev. 1994).
“NRS 630.352(1). We construe this statute to supersede the portion of the administrative procedure act subjecting factual findings to the “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence” standard.”
Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Potter, 659 P.2d 868 (Nev. 1983).
“The Board revoked Potter’s license on the basis of two charges, only one of which was supported by the record.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Sarfo v. State, 429 P.3d 650 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Tate, Jr. v. Nev. State Bd. Med. Exam'r, 356 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Every order that imposes a sanction against a licensee pursuant to subsection 4 or 5 of NRS 630.352 or any regulation of the Board is effective from the date the Secretary-Treasurer certifies the order until the date the order is modified or reversed by a final judgment of the…”
Sarfo v. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, No. 73117 (Nev. June 25, 2018).
“However, NRS 630.352(1) states that [a]ny member of the Board, other than a member of an investigative committee of the Board who participated in any determination regarding a formal complaint in the matter or any member serving on a panel of the Board at the hearing of the…”
Tate, Jr. v. Nev. State Bd. Med. Exam'r, 356 P.3d 506 (Nev. 2015).
“Every order that imposes a sanction against a licensee pursuant to subsection 4 or 5 of NRS 630.352 or any regulation of the Board is effective from the date the Secretary-Treasurer certifies the order until the date the order is modified or reversed by a final judgment of the…”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 630.352(1): 6 cases
Whitehead v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 878 P.2d 913 (Nev. 1994).
“Although we review the determinations of the Board and the Commission in accordance with the higher standards imposed on them by law and court rule, the fact that we do not engage in independent review is evidence that our review is deferential.”
Minton v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 881 P.2d 1339 (Nev. 1994).
“NRS 630.352(1). We construe this statute to supersede the portion of the administrative procedure act subjecting factual findings to the “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence” standard.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018).
“Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018).
“Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Sarfo v. State, 429 P.3d 650 (Nev. 2018).
“Because NRS 630.352(1) prevents members in the investigative committee from later participating in adjudicating claims stemming from the investigation, we extend the holding in Hernandez v.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 630.352(2): 1 case
Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Potter, 659 P.2d 868 (Nev. 1983).
“The Board revoked Potter’s license on the basis of two charges, only one of which was supported by the record.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.