of Higgins’s decision. It is true that BC & L was not automatically entitled to a hearing under the regulations: A. Hearings will be held only when the State Purchasing Agent or central purchasing office determines that substantial material factual issues are present that cannot be resolved satisfactorily through an examination of written documents in the record. Any party may request a hearing, but such requests shall be deemed denied unless specifically granted. 1.4.1.86 NMAC (1998). However, this regulation allows state officials to hold a hearing when one is necessary. Therefore, we agree with Higgins that BC & L, having failed to request a hearing, may not now complain of being deprived of one. See State Racing Comm’n v. McManus, 82 N.M. 108, 111-12, 476 P.2d 767, 770-71 (1970) (<HOLDING>). {40} Procedural irregularities do not require
holding that procedures were adequate even though the physician did not have the opportunity to challenge the results of an audit before requesting a hearing holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue holding that jockey who failed to exercise his administrative remedy of requesting hearing before racing commission could not complain to courts of receiving no hearing holding that where notice was deficient in administrative forfeiture proceedings proper remedy was to grant claimant right to a hearing