Anna Konopka v. New Hampshire Board of Medicine
Anna Konopka v. New Hampshire Board of Medicine, No. 2017-0733 (N.H. Nov. 16, 2018).
The holding in the court’s own words
Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. 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.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0733, Anna Konopka v. New Hampshire
Board of Medicine, the court on November 16, 2018, issued the
following order:
The plaintiff’s motion to amend her brief is granted.
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, Anna Konopka, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Kissinger, J.) dismissing her complaint and petition for injunctive relief against
the New Hampshire Board of Medicine (board) for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and for failing to exhaust her administrative
remedies. We construe her brief to argue that: (1) she executed her agreement
with the board to surrender her license to practice medicine in New Hampshire,
which was negotiated by her attorney, under duress; (2) the board fabricated the
complaints against her; (3) she was defamed by a nurse who raised concerns
with the board regarding how the plaintiff was prescribing certain medications;
(4) the board was motivated by persons unknown who are conspiring against her;
(5) the board incorrectly interpreted her patients’ records; (6) the board ignored
her letters and those of her patients; (7) she was not advised that she should
request a hearing before the board on her claim of duress; and (8) a criminal
investigation of her by the Attorney General should be stopped.
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.
Affirmed.
Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk