A. The "New Mexico medical review commission" is created. The function of the
New Mexico medical review commission is to provide panels to review all malpractice
claims against independent providers who are natural persons covered by the Medical
Malpractice Act.
B. Those eligible to sit on a panel shall consist of health care providers licensed
pursuant to New Mexico law and residing in New Mexico and members of the state bar.
C. The only cases that a panel will consider are cases involving an alleged act of
malpractice occurring in New Mexico by an independent provider qualified under the
Medical Malpractice Act. Beginning July 1, 2021, cases involving an alleged act of
malpractice by a hospital or outpatient health care facility shall not be considered and
such claims shall not be filed with the New Mexico medical review commission.
D. An attorney shall submit a case for the consideration of a panel, prior to filing a
complaint in any district court or other court sitting in New Mexico, by addressing an
application, in writing, signed by the patient or the patient's attorney, to the director of
the New Mexico medical review commission.
E. The director of the New Mexico medical review commission shall be an attorney
appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the chief justice of the New Mexico
supreme court.
F. The chief justice shall set the director's salary and report the salary to the
superintendent in the superintendent's capacity as custodian of the fund.
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-14, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 14; 2021, ch. 16, § 7.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, revised the scope of the medical review
commission, and provided that beginning July 1, 2021, cases involving an alleged act of
malpractice by a hospital or outpatient health care facility shall not be considered by, or
filed with, the medical review commission; in the section heading, after "Medical review
commission", added "independent providers"; in Subsection A, after "claims against",
deleted "health care" and added "independent", and after "providers", added who are
natural persons"; in Subsection C, added "The only", after "New Mexico by", changed
"health care providers" to "an independent provider", and after "the Medical Malpractice
Act.", added the remainder of the subsection; and in Subsection E, after "the New
Mexico medical review commission", changed "will" to "shall".
Claim submitted as of date of mailing. — The date of mailing an application for a
claim to the review commission constitutes submission of the claim for purposes of
Subsection D of this section. Otero v. Zouhar, 1985-NMSC-021, 102 N.M. 482, 697
P.2d 482, overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., 1990-NMSC-
076, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.
Law reviews. — For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7
N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77).
For comment on access to the courts and the Medical Malpractice Act: Jiron v. Mahlab,
see 14 N.M.L. Rev. 503 (1984).
For survey of medical malpractice law in New Mexico, see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 469 (1988).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.
· cites it 4× “The administrative duties of the medical review commission are handled by its director, who is an attorney “appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the [C]hief [J]ustice of the New Mexico [S]upreme [C]ourt.” Section 41-5-14(E).”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992).
· cites it 2× “ture offered health care providers “benefits” such as malpractice liability coverage, Section 41-5-25; limitations of malpractice awards, Section 41-5-6; limitations of personal liability of health care providers for future medical expenses, Section 41-5-7; and a mandatory…”
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018-NMSC-002, 408 P.3d 1012.
· cites it 2× “” Section 41-5-14(A). After the requisite review, the panel is tasked with deciding “(1) whether there is substantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute malpractice; and (2) whether there is a reasonable medical probability that the patient…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851.
· cites it 4× ““[Q]ualified” health care providers are those who meet certain financial requirements set forth in Section 41-5-5 and are therefore entitled to all the benefits of the MMA.”
Kern ex rel. Kern v. St. Joseph Hosp., Inc., 697 P.2d 135 (N.M. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” Second, she points out that the medical review commission created under Section 41-5-14 reviews “alb malpractice claims,” and that no malpractice action may be filed in any court before application has been made to and a decision rendered by that commission.”
Leyba v. Whitley, 907 P.2d 172 (N.M. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 41-5-14(D) (Repl.Pamp.1989) (requiring application to medical review commission for review of malpractice claims prior to filing claims in district court).”
Siebert v. Okun, 485 P.3d 1265 (N.M. 2021).
· cites it 2× “¶ 54; NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-14, -15, -20, -23 (1976).”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
· cites it 2× “The other benefits to qualified providers are a cap on damages ($600,000, excluding punitive damages and medical care costs in excess of that amount), Section 41-5-6(A) & (B); the prohibition of monetary awards for future medical expenses (they must be paid out as they accrue…”
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-14(A) and 41-5-15 (Repl.”
Siebert v. Okun, 2021-NMSC-016.
· cites it 2× “¶ 54; NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-14, -15, -20, -23 (1976).”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-14(0): 1 case
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-14(A): 8 cases
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018-NMSC-002, 408 P.3d 1012.
“” Section 41-5-14(A). After the requisite review, the panel is tasked with deciding “(1) whether there is substantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute malpractice; and (2) whether there is a reasonable medical probability that the patient…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851.
““[Q]ualified” health care providers are those who meet certain financial requirements set forth in Section 41-5-5 and are therefore entitled to all the benefits of the MMA.”
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983).
“NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-14(A) and 41-5-15 (Repl.”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-14(D): 8 cases
Leyba v. Whitley, 907 P.2d 172 (N.M. 1995).
“See NMSA 1978, § 41-5-14(D) (Repl.Pamp.1989) (requiring application to medical review commission for review of malpractice claims prior to filing claims in district court).”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
“The other benefits to qualified providers are a cap on damages ($600,000, excluding punitive damages and medical care costs in excess of that amount), Section 41-5-6(A) & (B); the prohibition of monetary awards for future medical expenses (they must be paid out as they accrue…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-14(E): 4 cases
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.
“The administrative duties of the medical review commission are handled by its director, who is an attorney “appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the [C]hief [J]ustice of the New Mexico [S]upreme [C]ourt.” Section 41-5-14(E).”
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983).
“NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-14(A) and 41-5-15 (Repl.”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-14(F): 1 case
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.