N.M. Stat. § 61-1-3 (2026)

Every licensee or applicant shall be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard
before the board has authority to take any action that would result in:

   A. denial of permission to take an examination for licensing for which a complete
application has been properly made as required by board rule;
   B. denial of a license after examination for any cause other than failure to pass an
examination;

    C. denial of a license for which a complete application has been properly made as
required by board rule on the basis of expedited licensure, reciprocity or endorsement
or acceptance of a national certificate of qualification;

   D. withholding the renewal of a license for which a complete application has been
properly made for any cause other than:

       (1)    failure to pay any required renewal fee;

       (2)    failure to meet continuing education requirements; or

       (3)    issuance of a temporary license extension if authorized by statute;

   E. suspension of a license;

   F. revocation of a license;

   G. probation of a license, including restrictions or limitations on the scope of a
practice;

    H. the requirement that the applicant complete a program of remedial education or
treatment;

   I. monitoring of the practice by a supervisor approved by the board, excluding
supervision required for initial licensure;

   J. the censure or reprimand of the licensee or applicant, including an action that
constitutes formal discipline or is subject to reporting to a state or national organization;

   K. compliance with conditions of probation or suspension for a specific period of
time;

   L. payment of a fine;

   M. corrective action, as specified by the board; or

   N. a refund to the consumer of fees that were billed to and collected from the
consumer by the licensee.

History: 1953 Comp., § 67-26-3, enacted by Laws 1957, ch. 247, § 3; 1978 Comp., §
61-1-3;1981, ch. 349, § 2; 1993, ch. 295, § 2; 2020, ch. 6, § 3; 2023, ch. 190, § 2.

                                      ANNOTATIONS
The 2023 amendment, effective July 1, 2023, clarified certain provisions related to
affording an applicant for licensure notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to any
board action; in Subsections A and C, added "a complete" preceding "application", and
in Subsection C, after "on the basis of", added "expedited licensure"; in Subsection D,
after "renewal of a license", added "for which a complete application has been properly
made"; in Subsection G, added "probation of a license, including"; in Subsection I,
added "excluding supervision required for initial licensure"; in Subsection J, added
"including an action that constitutes formal discipline or is subject to reporting to a state
or national organization"; and in Subsection L, deleted "for a violation not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, unless a greater amount is provided by
law".

The 2020 amendment, effective July 1, 2020, in the introductory paragraph, after "take
any action", deleted "which" and added "that".

The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, added the Paragraph (1) designation
and Paragraphs (2) and (3) to Subsection D; added Subsections G through N; and
made stylistic changes throughout the section.

Sufficiency of notice and hearing determined under due process standards. –
Because there is no precise statutory guideline for a proceeding under this section and
due process requires adequate notice and a hearing before the state can take action
seeking remuneration against a licensee, the sufficiency of the notice and hearing must
be determined under a constitutional due process analysis. Rex, Inc. v. Manufactured
Hous. Comm., 2003-NMCA-134, 134 N.M. 533, 80 P.3d 470.

A constitutional due process analysis under this section must consider and balance
three factors: (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of
the interest with the procedures used, and (3) the government's interest, including the
fiscal and administrative burdens of providing additional procedures. Rex, Inc. v.
Manufactured Hous. Comm., 2003-NMCA-134, 134 N.M. 533, 80 P.3d 470.

Due process requirements were satisfied where the notice of contemplated action cited
the statute and the rules the committee relied upon in contemplating the attachment of
the consumer bond, contained information about the actual bond, and outlined the
general nature of the evidence, and where the licensee had a full and fair opportunity to
be heard on the issue of whether collateral estoppel applied on the issues of
misrepresentation and loss by the consumers. Rex, Inc. v. Manufactured Hous. Comm.,
2003-NMCA-134, 134 N.M. 533, 80 P.3d 470.

Probable cause hearing not necessary before revocation proceedings. — A
licensee is not deprived of any due process rights when no probable cause hearing is
conducted prior to the institution of license revocation proceedings. Keney v.
Derbyshire, 718 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1983).
Charging board not disqualified in hearing on charge. — The board of medical
examiners has exclusive jurisdiction of the granting and revoking of certificates
admitting physicians and surgeons to practice and, in view of the absence of a provision
for disqualification of board members, proceedings before the board may not be
restrained merely by reason of the fact that the board itself initiated the proceedings
against a physician and was, therefore, an interested party. Seidenberg v. N.M. Bd. of
Med. Exam'rs, 1969-NMSC-028, 80 N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469.

Zeal in performing public duty does not disqualify. Seidenberg v. N.M. Bd. of Med.
Exam'rs, 1969-NMSC-028, 80 N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469.

County and municipal officials exceeded their authority by enacting abortion-
related ordinances preempted by state law. — Where several counties and
municipalities (respondents) enacted local ordinances prohibiting the mailing or receipt
of any abortion-related instrumentality and creating licensing schemes exclusive to
abortion clinics and providers, and where the state of New Mexico sought a writ of
mandamus and stay of respondents enforcement of the ordinances and to invalidate the
ordinances as preempted by state law, the writ of mandamus was granted because the
ordinances plainly conflicted with the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act, which
imposes uniformity in the licensure of professionals in the state of New Mexico and
promotes uniformity with respect to the conduct of board hearings and judicial reviews.
The pervasive regulatory scheme under the Uniform Licensing Act demonstrates the
legislature's intent to occupy the field of medical licensure specifically, and state
professional licensure generally. State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Lea
Cnty., 2025-NMSC-011.

Authority of pharmacy board. — Subsection L grants the board of pharmacy authority
to fine pharmacist licensees up to $1,000.00 for any violation of the Pharmacy Act,
Section 61-11-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., or for a violation of provisions of the board's rules
and regulations for which the Pharmacy Act authorizes disciplinary action. Additionally,
Subsection L grants the board authority to impose fines of the same amounts upon non-
pharmacist registrants and licensees over whom the board has the power to impose
other forms of discipline including license or registration revocation and suspension. As
to persons over whom the board lacks such disciplinary powers under the Pharmacy
Act, the Uniform Licensing Act does not grant the power to impose fines. 1995 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 95-01.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 51 Am. Jur. 2d Licenses and Permits §§
16, 57, 139.

Validity of statute or ordinance vesting discretion as to license in public officials without
prescribing a rule of action, 12 A.L.R. 1435, 54 A.L.R. 1104, 92 A.L.R. 400.

Suspicion of intended violation of its conditions as ground for refusal of license, 27
A.L.R. 325.
Personal liability of public officers for refusing to grant license, 85 A.L.R. 298.

License holder's right to question propriety of issuing license to other persons, 109
A.L.R. 1259.

What amounts to conviction or satisfies requirement as to showing of conviction, within
statute making conviction a ground for refusing to grant or for cancelling license or
special privilege, 113 A.L.R. 1179.

Prohibition as means of controlling licensing official, 115 A.L.R. 15, 159 A.L.R. 627.

Revocability of license for fraud or other misconduct before or at the time of its
issuance, 165 A.L.R. 1138.

Change in law pending application for permit or license, 169 A.L.R. 584.

Construction of "grandfather clause" of statute or ordinance regulating or licensing
business or occupation, 4 A.L.R.2d 667.

Right of person wrongfully refused license upon proper application therefor to do act for
which license is required, 30 A.L.R.2d 1006.

Right to attack validity of statute, ordinance or regulation relating to occupational or
professional license as affected by applying for, or securing, license, 65 A.L.R.2d 660.

Bias of members of license revocation board, 97 A.L.R.2d 1210.

53 C.J.S. Licenses §§ 43, 55.