In re Doe

Held that the Board of Medicine did not violate appellant’s due process rights under the New Hampshire Constitution when it temporarily suspended his license after finding that there were sufficient facts to prove that he posed an imminent danger to life or health; the physician had been notified of allegations against him, which included an allegation that he asked a juvenile inappropriate questions about sex during a medical visit and an allegation that he had inappropriately touched a non-juvenile female patient, and had submitted responses to the allegations, and the Board scheduled an adjudicative suspension hearing to take place five days after the temporary suspension order, which was continued at physician’s request. The court noted that the State’s interest in protecting the public from an imminent danger to life or health is significant and will often justify the use of summary procedures in license suspension proceedings without violating procedural due process. In cases involving public health and safety and the integrity of professional licensure, the force of the due process factors of the possible risk of erroneous deprivation and the possible benefit of additional safeguards is significantly diminished by the ready availability of prompt postdeprivation review.