Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Whether the
New Hampshire Supreme Court erred in failing to find
that the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine(the "BVM"), an administrative agency under the NewHampshire Department of Agriculture, lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to inspect and make findings ofviolations under the New Hampshire Controlled DrugAct (the "Controlled Drug Act"), where the NewHampshire Legislature (the "Legislature") directs thatthe duty "to enforce all provisions of [the ControlledDrug Act]" rests solely with "the department of health
and human services, [and its agents]; the pharmacyboard [and its agents]; and of all peace officers withinthe state, and of all county attorneys," RevisedStatutes, Annotated ("RSA") 318-B:23, violations of the
Controlled Drug Act are criminal in nature, RSA 318-B:26, and where the New Hampshire Legislature hasspecifically directed, that "[a]ll physicians,veterinarians , dentists, advanced registered nurse
practitioners, physician a ssistants, and clinics . . .
shall be subject to inspection and regulation by
the board of pharmacy with regard to the storage,
labeling, distribution, and disposal ofprescription drugs," RSA 318:8-a (emphasissupplied); see also RSA 318-B:25 (inspections
authorized under Controlled Drug Act).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine to inspect and enforce violations under the New Hampshire Controlled Drug Act