Section 24-2D-3 - Disciplinary action; evidentiary requirementsA. A health care provider who prescribes, dispenses or administers medical treatment for the purpose of relieving pain and who can demonstrate by reference to an accepted guideline that the provider's practice substantially complies with that guideline and with the standards of practice identified in Section 24-2D-4 NMSA 1978 shall not be disciplined pursuant to board action or criminal prosecution, unless the showing of substantial compliance with an accepted guideline by the health care provider is rebutted by clinical expert testimony. If no currently accepted guidelines are available, then rules issued by the board may serve the function of such guidelines for purposes of the Pain Relief Act. The board rules shall conform to the intent of that act. Guidelines established primarily for purposes of coverage, payment or reimbursement do not qualify as an "accepted guideline" when offered to limit treatment options otherwise covered within the Pain Relief Act.B. In the event that a disciplinary action or criminal prosecution is pursued, the board or prosecutor shall produce clinical expert testimony supporting the finding or charge of violation of disciplinary standards or other legal requirements on the part of the health care provider. A showing of substantial compliance with an accepted guideline shall only be rebutted by clinical expert testimony.C. The provisions of this section apply to health care providers in the treatment of pain, regardless of a patient's prior or current chemical dependency or addiction. Each board shall adopt rules establishing standards and procedures for the application of the Pain Relief Act, including pain management for patients with substance use disorders.D. In an action brought by a board against a health care provider based on treatment of a patient for pain, the board shall consider the totality of the circumstances and shall not use as the sole basis of the action: (2) a patient's diagnosis;(3) a patient's prognosis;(4) a patient's history of drug abuse;(5) the absence of consultation with a pain specialist; or(6) the quantity of medication prescribed or dispensed. Laws 1999, ch. 126, § 3; 2005, ch. 140, § 2; 2012, ch. 41, § 2.Amended by 2012, c. 41,s. 2, eff. 5/16/2012.