New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-10 (2026)
Repealed.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-10, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 10; 1978 Comp., § 41-5-10, repealed by Laws 2021, ch. 16, § 17. ANNOTATIONS Repeals. — Laws 2021, ch. 16, § 17 repealed 41-5-10 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 10, relating to patient, future examinations and hearings, effective January 1, 2022. For provisions of former section, see the 2021 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1971–2018 · leading case: Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992).
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). “-5-7(H) (making "health care provider” personally liable for punitive damages); § 41-5-8 (making evidence of prejudgment payment of injured person’s medical expenses by "health care provider” inadmissible at trial); § 41-5-9(D) (alloeating burden of proving need for medical care…”
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). “He attacks Section 41-5-4 concerning the absence of a monetary amount in the ad damnum clause of a complaint; Section 41-5-6, concerning limitation on the amount of recovery; Sections 41-5-7 and 41-5-25, concerning possible inability to collect future medical benefits; Section…”
State v. Ortiz, 563 P.2d 113 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). “on to dismiss the indictment was predicated on three grounds: (1) neither the indictment nor the statement of facts [furnished after the hearing on the first motion] sufficiently apprised defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (2) being tried on the…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “or a settlement is reached between a patient and health care provider”); § 41-5-10(A) (entitling health care providers to have a physical examination of the patient); § 41-5-14(A) (creating medical review commission “to provide panels to review all malpractice claims against…”
State v. Elam, 526 P.2d 189 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). “Section 41-5-10, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol.”
State v. Blakley, 568 P.2d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). “II, § 14; § 41-5-10, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6).”
State v. Ergenbright, 506 P.2d 1209 (N.M. 1973). “” The attack here is not upon the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial to support the conviction, but upon the sufficiency of the evidence presented before the grand jury to satisfy it that the offense of rape of a child had been committed.”
State v. Paul, 485 P.2d 375 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). “To- be’- süre, -the statutes oh the subject have b'eén1 changed since Chance was decided in- 1923, but' they are essentially similar to those ’there involved and still do not provide for judicial review of the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the grand jury.”
— N.M. Stat. § 41-5-10(A) — 2 cases
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). “-5-7(H) (making "health care provider” personally liable for punitive damages); § 41-5-8 (making evidence of prejudgment payment of injured person’s medical expenses by "health care provider” inadmissible at trial); § 41-5-9(D) (alloeating burden of proving need for medical care…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “or a settlement is reached between a patient and health care provider”); § 41-5-10(A) (entitling health care providers to have a physical examination of the patient); § 41-5-14(A) (creating medical review commission “to provide panels to review all malpractice claims against…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.