N.M. Stat. § 61-1-11 (2026)

A. In proceedings held under the Uniform Licensing Act, boards and hearing officers
may admit any evidence and may give probative effect to evidence that is of a kind
commonly relied on by reasonably prudent people in the conduct of serious affairs.
Boards and hearing officers may in their discretion exclude incompetent, irrelevant,
immaterial and unduly repetitious evidence. In proceedings involving the suspension or
revocation of a license, rules of privilege shall be applicable to the same extent as in
proceedings before the courts of this state. Documentary evidence may be received in
the form of copies or excerpts.

    B. Boards and hearing officers may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and in
addition may take notice of general, technical or scientific facts within their specialized
knowledge. When any board or hearing officer takes notice of a fact, the applicant or
licensee shall be notified either before or during the hearing of the fact so noticed and
its source and shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the fact so noticed.

   C. Boards and hearing officers may utilize their experience, technical competence
and specialized knowledge in the evaluation of evidence presented to them.
History: 1953 Comp., § 67-26-11, enacted by Laws 1957, ch. 247, § 11; 1981, ch. 349,
§ 10.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Reliable evidence given probative effect. — Evidence of a kind commonly relied on
by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of serious affairs may be given probative
effect under this section. Young v. Board of Pharmacy, 1969-NMSC-168, 81 N.M. 5,
462 P.2d 139.

Necessity of expert testimony. — Expert testimony is not required to establish
negligence or a failure to comply with the standards of professional conduct. A board is
required to rely on substantial evidence in reaching its decision; while the court will
defer to the board's expert interpretation of evidence, the court will not allow the board
to take disciplinary action without substantial evidence in the record to justify the
application of the board's expertise. Gonzales v. N.M. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs,
1998-NMSC-021, 125 N.M. 418, 962 P.2d 1253.

Expert testimony was not required to support charges that a dentist submitted a false
claim for reimbursement and that the dentist was guilty of unprofessional conduct and
failed to practice dentistry in a professionally competent manner. Where the agency
conducting the hearing is itself composed of experts qualified to make a judgment as to
the licensee's adherence to standards of professional conduct, there is no need for the
kind of assistance an expert provides in the form of an opinion. Weiss v. N.M. Bd. of
Dentistry, 1990-NMSC-077, 110 N.M. 574, 798 P.2d 175.

Hearsay admissible. — This section clearly contemplates that a board may admit and
consider hearsay evidence, if it is of a kind commonly relied upon by reasonably
prudent men in the conduct of serious affairs. In re Willoughby, 1971-NMSC-040, 82
N.M. 443, 483 P.2d 498.

Reference to indictment. — Because an agency has wide discretion in receiving and
excluding evidence in proceedings under the Uniform Licensing Act, any error in
allowing reference to an indictment against a dentist was harmless. Weiss v. N.M. Bd.
of Dentistry, 1990-NMSC-077110 N.M. 574, 798 P.2d 175.

Standard of proof applied in administrative proceedings, with few exceptions, is a
preponderance of the evidence. Foster v. Bd. of Dentistry, 1986-NMSC-009, 103 N.M.
776, 714 P.2d 580.

Substantial evidence must support revocation. — The revocation or suspension of a
license to conduct a business or profession must not be based solely upon hearsay
evidence, as other legally competent evidence, together with the hearsay evidence,
must substantially support the findings upon which the revocation or suspension is
based. In re Willoughby, 1971-NMSC-040, 82 N.M. 443, 483 P.2d 498.
Higher burden to prove fraud. — If fraud is charged in an administrative proceeding,
the evidence in support of a finding of fraud is not deemed substantial "if it is not clear,
strong and convincing." Seidenberg v. N.M. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 1969-NMSC-028, 80
N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469.

Special weight given to technical findings. — Courts may properly give special
weight and credence to findings concerning technical or scientific matters by
administrative bodies whose members, by education, training or experience, are
especially qualified and are functioning within the perimeters of their expertise since
legislative approval of the treatment of the findings of these boards is implicit in this
section. McDaniel v. N.M. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 1974-NMSC-062, 86 N.M. 447, 525
P.2d 374.

Law reviews. — For article, "An Administrative Procedure Act for New Mexico," see 8
Nat. Res. J. 114 (1968).

For article, "The Use of the Substantial Evidence Rule to Review Administrative
Findings of Fact in New Mexico," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 103 (1979-80).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 51 Am. Jur. 2d Licenses and Permits §§
62, 71, 79, 80, 83.

Hearsay in proceedings for suspension or revocation of license to conduct business or
profession, 142 A.L.R. 1388.

Hearsay evidence in proceedings before state administrative agencies, 36 A.L.R.3d 12.

Necessity of expert evidence in proceeding for revocation or suspension of license of
physician, surgeon, or dentist, 74 A.L.R.4th 969.

53 C.J.S. Licenses §§ 43, 58, 59.