Deborah Cadman v. State of New Hampshire & a.

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0384, Deborah Cadman v. State of New Hampshire & a., the court on March 6, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, Deborah Cadman, appeals an order of the Superior Court (McNamara, J.) dismissing her declaratory judgment action against the defendants, the State of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Board of Medicine (board), because she lacked standing pursuant to Petition of Lath, 169 N.H. 616, 623 (2017). The plaintiff contends that: (1) Lath does not control; (2) she has an individualized interest in the appeal; and (3) the board erroneously applied a five-year statute of limitations to her prior complaint to it. Compare RSA 332-G:9, I (2017) with RSA 329:17, XII (2017).

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. Because we uphold the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff lacks standing, we need not address her other arguments.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk