AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Glenn Wilcox, a doctor of oriental medicine, appealed against two sets of regulations passed by the New Mexico Board of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (the Board). The first set, known as the Emergency Regulations, was passed in June 2010, and the second set, referred to as the 2010 Regulations, was passed in October 2010. The appeals were consolidated into one case for review by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Procedural History

• Wilcox v. N.M. Bd. of Acupuncture & Oriental Med., 2010 WL 4684756 (July 23, 2010): The Court set aside the 2009 Regulations due to the Board's failure to communicate the reasons behind the passage of the regulations.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Contended that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by declaring an emergency without substantial evidence of an actual emergency as defined by statute, thus improperly passing the Emergency Regulations. Also argued that the 2010 Regulations omitted substances authorized by the Practice Act, limited modes of administration unlawfully, and imposed unauthorized fees.
• Appellee: Argued that the Emergency Regulations were necessary to protect public safety and clarify regulatory confusion. Defended the 2010 Regulations as within the Board's authority, asserting that limitations on substances and modes of administration were based on substantial evidence and that the fees were authorized by the Practice Act.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Board acted within its statutory authority in passing the Emergency Regulations.
• Whether the Board's approval of the 2010 Regulations was lawful and supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the fees imposed by the 2010 Regulations were authorized by the Practice Act.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the Board's decision to impose the Emergency Regulations.
• The Court affirmed the Board's approval of the permanent 2010 Regulations.

Reasons

• The Court found that the Board acted contrary to its statutory authority in passing the Emergency Regulations due to a lack of substantial evidence of an actual emergency as defined by statute (paras 8-14). However, the Court upheld the 2010 Regulations, concluding that the Board acted within its statutory authority and based its decisions on substantial evidence. The Court determined that the Board had the power to determine how substances listed in the Practice Act could be administered and that the fees imposed were authorized by the Practice Act (paras 15-30). The Court also addressed the redefinition of "bioidentical hormones" and "natural substances," finding the Board's definitions to be based on substantial evidence and within its authority to interpret terms left undefined in the Practice Act (paras 27-28).