New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 61-8-11 (2026)

Suspension, revocation or refusal of license.

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The board may refuse to issue or may suspend or revoke a license in accordance
with the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act [Chapter 61, Article 1 NMSA 1978] for
any one or more of the following reasons:

    A. making a false statement in any part of an application for licensure, examination
or registration pursuant to the provisions of the Podiatry Act;

    B. having a disqualifying criminal conviction as determined by the board. As used in
this subsection, "disqualifying criminal conviction" means a conviction for a crime that is
related to the profession of podiatry;

   C. the habitual indulgence in the use of narcotics, alcohol or other substances that
impair intellect and judgment to an extent as will, in the opinion of the board,
incapacitate a podiatric physician from the proper performance of professional duties;

   D. lending the use of one's name to an unlicensed podiatric physician;

   E. selling, giving or prescribing any compound or substance containing narcotic
drugs or other controlled substances for illegal purposes;

   F. the willful violation of a patient's right to confidentiality;
   G. gross malpractice or incompetency as defined by board rule; or

   H. dishonest or unprofessional conduct as defined by the Podiatry Act or rules
adopted pursuant to that act.

History: 1953 Comp., § 67-6-11, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 221, § 11; 1998, ch. 24, §
12; 2023, ch. 141, § 13.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

The 2023 amendment, effective June 16, 2023, provided that the New Mexico medical
board may refuse to issue or may suspend or revoke a license if an applicant has a
disqualifying criminal conviction as determined by the board, and defined "disqualifying
conviction"; in Subsection B, deleted "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, as
shown by a certified copy of the record of the court of conviction" and added "having a
disqualifying criminal conviction as determined by the board. As used in this
subsection, 'disqualifying criminal conviction' means a conviction for a crime that is
related to the profession of podiatry"; and in Subsections C and D, substituted each
occurrence of "podiatrist" with "podiatric physician".

The 1998 amendment, effective July 1, 1998, deleted "or take other action specified in
Section 61-1-3 NMSA 1978" following "license" in the introductory language; in
Subsection A, substituted "part of" for "affidavit required for" and "pursuant to" for
"under"; in Subsection C, substituted "alcohol" for "ardent spirits, stimulants" and "that"
for "which"; substituted "violation of a patient's right to confidentiality" for "betrayal of a
professional confidence" in Subsection F; deleted former Subsections G and H, relating
to soliciting the public, and use of advertising; redesignated Subsections I and J as G
and H, substituted "rule" for "regulation" in Subsection G; and substituted "the Podiatry
Act or rules adopted pursuant to that act" for "regulation of the board" in Subsection H.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 61 2d Physicians, Surgeons and Other
Healers §§ 74 to 120.

Practicing medicine, surgery, dentistry, optometry or other healing arts without license
as a separate or continuing offense, 99 A.L.R.2d 654.

Physician's or other healer's conduct in connection with defense of or resistance to
malpractice action as ground for revocation of license or other disciplinary action, 44
A.L.R.4th 248.

Podiatry or chiropody statutes: validity, construction, and application, 45 A.L.R.4th 888.

Improper or immoral sexually related conduct toward patient as ground for disciplinary
action against physician, dentist, or other licensed healer, 59 A.L.R.4th 1104.
Rights as to notice and hearing in proceeding to revoke or suspend license to practice
medicine, 10 A.L.R.5th 1.

70 C.J.S. Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Health-Care Providers §§ 24, 38 to 42, 53 to
57.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: Varoz v. New Mexico Bd. of Podiatry, 722 P.2d 1176 (N.M. 1986).
Varoz v. New Mexico Bd. of Podiatry, 722 P.2d 1176 (N.M. 1986). · cites it 15× “The legislature's intention to protect the licensee's property right to the fullest extent possible consistent with the public health and safety is also evident in the permissive language of the relevant license revocation statutes.”
Weiss v. New Mexico Bd. of Dentistry, 798 P.2d 175 (N.M. 1990). “We said, with reference to one of the convictions: “Under Sections 61-8-11 [of the Podiatry Act] and 28-2-4, the conviction, being final and presumptively valid, formed a separate, independent, and adequate basis for revoking Varoz’s license.”
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 2006-NMCA-069, 137 P.3d 619. · cites it 2× “etence or gross negligence"); NMSA 1978, § 61-6-15(D)(12), (13), (19) (2005) (providing that medical doctors may be disciplined for gross negligence, manifest incapacity, incompetence, or "repeated similar negligent acts"); NMSA 1978, § 61-7A-13(A)(4) (1989) (providing that…”
N.M. Stat. § 61-8-11(B): 1 case
Varoz v. New Mexico Bd. of Podiatry, 722 P.2d 1176 (N.M. 1986). “The legislature's intention to protect the licensee's property right to the fullest extent possible consistent with the public health and safety is also evident in the permissive language of the relevant license revocation statutes.”
N.M. Stat. § 61-8-11(G): 1 case
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 2006-NMCA-069, 137 P.3d 619. “etence or gross negligence"); NMSA 1978, § 61-6-15(D)(12), (13), (19) (2005) (providing that medical doctors may be disciplined for gross negligence, manifest incapacity, incompetence, or "repeated similar negligent acts"); NMSA 1978, § 61-7A-13(A)(4) (1989) (providing that…”
N.M. Stat. § 61-8-11(J): 1 case
Varoz v. New Mexico Bd. of Podiatry, 722 P.2d 1176 (N.M. 1986). “The legislature's intention to protect the licensee's property right to the fullest extent possible consistent with the public health and safety is also evident in the permissive language of the relevant license revocation statutes.”
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.