New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-12 (2026)
Claims for compensation not assignable.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A patient's claim for compensation under the Medical Malpractice Act is not
assignable.
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-12, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 12.
ANNOTATIONS
Emergency clauses. — Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 32 contained an emergency clause and
was approved February 27, 1976.
The Medical Malpractice Act's nonassignability provision does not bar claims
held by nonpatients. — Where petitioner, decedent's personal representative, sued
Presbyterian Healthcare Services (Presbyterian) for medical malpractice, and where
Presbyterian then sued respondents for indemnification, and where Presbyterian
ultimately settled the medical malpractice lawsuit with petitioner and, as part of the
settlement, assigned its indemnification claim to petitioner, and where respondents
claimed that this section bars assignment of all malpractice claims, including indemnity
claims, the district court did not err in determining that assignment of an indemnity claim
is allowable under the Medical Malpractice Act, because the plain language of the
MMA's nonassignability provision is clear and unambiguous and does not bar claims
held by nonpatients, such as the indemnity cause of action at issue here. A patient's
claim is a subset of malpractice claims and the legislature intended only that patients'
claims, not all malpractice claims, be made unassignable. Leger v. Gerety, 2022-
NMSC-007, rev'g 2019-NMCA-033, 444 P.3d 1036.
Legislative intent. — The legislature intended the Medical Malpractice Act's (MMA),
41-5-1 to -29 NMSA 1978, requirements and restrictions to apply to all "malpractice
claims" covered by the MMA and, accordingly, this section bars assignment of all
malpractice claims for compensation covered by the MMA. Leger v. Gerety, 2019-
NMCA-033, cert. granted.
Indemnification claim barred from assignment. — In a wrongful death and medical
malpractice action, where plaintiffs sued a hospital based on allegations of malpractice
by a physician not employed by the hospital for which plaintiffs claimed the hospital was
vicariously liable, and where the hospital filed a third-party complaint for equitable
indemnification against the physician and his employer, which third-party complaint was
later assigned to one of the plaintiffs as part of a settlement, the district court erred in
denying the physician's motion to dismiss, because the hospital's assignment of its
indemnification claim, which was predicated upon the allegation of professional
negligence, was barred by the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), 41-5-1 to -29 NMSA
1978, which prohibits the assignment of a patient's claim for compensation under the
MMA. Leger v. Gerety, 2019-NMCA-033, cert. granted.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons,
and Other Healers §§ 170 to 174.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Leger v. Gerety, 2022 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021).
Leger v. Gerety, 2022 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021). “1 The question before us is whether the nonassignability provision of the MMA, § 41-5-12, which states that “[a] patient’s claim for compensation under the [MMA] is not assignable,” prohibits the assignment of a hospital’s third-party indemnity claim against a qualified…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “19 {2} The question presented is whether the hospital’s assignment of its 20 indemnification claim to one of the plaintiffs is barred by the MMA’s prohibition 1 against assignment of “[a] patient’s claim for compensation under the [MMA,]” 2 Section 41-5-12, or the common law.”
State v. Hogervorst, 566 P.2d 828 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). “See § 41-5-12, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6), the 1975 amendment not being applicable.”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “Compare § 55-3-309, with NMSA 1978, § 41-5-12 (1976) (providing that “[a] patient’s claim for compensation under the Medical Malpractice Act is not assignable”).”
State v. Evans, 557 P.2d 1114 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). “Section 41-5-12, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol.”
Murphy v. United States (D.N.M. 2021). “§ 41-5-12 (“A patient’s claim for compensation under the Medical Malpractice Act is not assignable.”
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Garcia (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “7 Compare § 55-3-309, with NMSA 1978, § 41-5-12 (1976) (providing that “[a] 8 patient’s claim for compensation under the Medical Malpractice Act is not 9 assignable”).”
Belgravia Hartford Capital, Inc. v. Stinson, LLP (D.N.M. 2025). “Section 41-5-12 of the MMA says that a “patient’s claim for compensation under the [MMA] is not assignable.”
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.