Deborah Cadman v. State of New Hampshire & a.

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