N.M. Stat. » Chapter 41 — Torts
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-15 (2026)

Commission decision required; application

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. No malpractice action may be filed in any court against a qualifying independent provider or the independent provider's employer, master or principal based on a theory of respondeat superior or any other derivative theory of recovery before application is made to the New Mexico medical review commission and its decision is rendered; provided, however, that an independent provider and the patient may stipulate to forego the panel process.

B. This application shall contain the following: (1) the name of the health care provider against which the claims are asserted;

(2) a short and plain statement of the grounds as to why the New Mexico medical review commission has jurisdiction over the claims being asserted;

(3) the specific date or date range when the malpractice allegedly occurred;

(4) so far as known, a brief statement of the facts supporting the patient's malpractice claim; and

(5) a statement authorizing the panel to obtain access to all medical and hospital records and information pertaining to the matter giving rise to the application and, for the purposes of its consideration of the matter only, waiving any claim of privilege as to the contents of those records. Nothing in that statement shall in any way be construed as waiving that privilege for any other purpose or in any other context, in or out of court.

History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-15, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 15; 2021, ch. 16, § 8.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2021 amendment, effective January 1, 2022, provided that no malpractice action may be filed based on a theory of respondeat superior or any other derivative theory of recovery before application is made to the New Mexico medical review commission and its decision is rendered, provided that an independent provider and the patient may stipulate to forego the panel process, and revised the required contents of an application to the New Mexico medical review commission; in Subsection A, after "qualifying", deleted "health care" and added "independent", after "provider", added "or the independent provider's employer, master or principal based on a theory of respondeat superior or any other derivative theory of recovery", and after "rendered", added the remainder of the subsection; and in Subsection B, deleted former Paragraph B(1) and added new Paragraphs B(1) through B(4), and redesignated former Paragraph B(2) as Paragraph B(5).

Section does not deprive all plaintiffs of constitutional right of access to courts. Jiron v. Mahlab, 1983-NMSC-022, 99 N.M. 425, 659 P.2d 311.

Unconstitutional to cause undue delay. — Where the requirement of first going before the medical review commission causes undue delay prejudicing a plaintiff by the loss of witnesses or parties, the plaintiff is unconstitutionally deprived of his right of access to the courts. Jiron v. Mahlab, 1983-NMSC-022, 99 N.M. 425, 659 P.2d 311.

Decision by medical review commission was not jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of a complaint in court against a qualified health care provider for medical malpractice. Rupp v. Hurley, 2002-NMCA-023, 131 N.M. 646, 41 P.3d 914, cert. denied, 131 N.M. 737, 42 P.3d 842.

Subsection A procedural and not binding. — The statutory provision that claimants against health care providers first submit their claims to the commission before filing suit is a purely procedural requirement and cannot, therefore, be deemed binding; the procedural provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act, to the extent of denying plaintiff access to the courts, shall not control where the defendant has not been prejudiced. 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.

Not necessary to bring each allegation before commission. — Under this section, it is not necessary that each of plaintiff's counts, nor each of plaintiff's allegations, be presented to the medical review commission, as the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice and battery claims not submitted to the commission where application satisfied requirements of this section. Trujillo v. Puro, 1984-NMCA-050, 101 N.M. 408, 683 P.2d 963, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 362, 683 P.2d 44.

Claims not necessary to bring before commission. — Claims for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not first have to be presented to the medical review commission because they do not come within the definition of a malpractice claim. Trujillo v. Puro, 1984-NMCA-050, 101 N.M. 408, 683 P.2d 963, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 362, 683 P.2d 44.

Excused failure to file claim with commission. — Misinformation supplied by the office of the state superintendent of insurance, regarding who were qualified health care providers, excused plaintiff's failure to file claim with the commission before filing a complaint in district court. 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.

Statute of limitation tolled regardless of outcome. — This section, which tolls the statute of limitations period upon submission of a case to the commission, should be enforced according to its terms whether the commission's determination is that the health care provider is not qualified and the claim is consequently rejected, or that the health care provider is qualified and the claim is resolved on its merits. Grantland v. Lea Reg’l Hosp., 1990-NMSC-076, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.

Application was sufficient to toll statute of limitations. — Where plaintiff filed an application to the New Mexico medical review commission (MRC) alleging that as a result of medical negligence plaintiff’s pregnancy was aborted, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant on the basis that plaintiff’s application was not specific enough in making allegations against defendant to trigger the Medical Malpractice Act’s, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-1 to -29, tolling provision on plaintiff’s claims against defendant. Plaintiff’s application to the MRC clearly named defendant, and the application recited a brief statement of the facts describing the dates and the circumstances, as far as they were known, of the acts and omissions of named employees and physicians working in defendant’s hospitals. Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, rev’g A-1-CA-35177, mem. Op. (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017) (non-precedential).

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).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 110× “The specific claim was that the filing of the lawsuit violated Section 41-5-15(A). The trial court granted the motions of Layne and the Corporation; plaintiff appeals.”
Jiron v. Mahlab, 659 P.2d 311 (N.M. 1983). · cites it 40× “In June 1982, the Jirons made application for review by the Medical Review Commission as required by Section 41-5-15. Thus, the malpractice suit was instituted prior to application to or decision by the Medical Review Commission in order to insure the court's personal…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851. · cites it 32× “” Section 41-5-15(A). Pertinent to the case before us here, the application must include “a brief statement of the facts of the case, naming the persons involved, the dates and the circumstances, so far as they are known, of the alleged .”
Rupp v. Hurley, 2002-NMCA-023, 131 N.M. 646. · cites it 24× “{1} In this case, consistent with New Mexico Supreme Court precedent, we hold that under NMSA 1978, § 41-5-15 (1977) of the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), a decision by the Medical Review Commission (MRC) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of a complaint in court…”
Rupp v. Hurley, 41 P.3d 914 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 24× “{1} In this case, consistent with New Mexico Supreme Court precedent, we hold that under NMSA 1978, § 41-5-15 (1977) of the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), a decision by the Medical Review Commission (MRC) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of a complaint in court…”
Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 796 P.2d 599 (N.M. 1990). · cites it 14× “§ 41-5-15(A). Upon receipt of an application a panel is selected, § 41-5-17, and after consideration of all relevant material, the panel decides only two questions, namely, "(1) whether there is substantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute…”
Trujillo v. Puro, 683 P.2d 963 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff’s application satisfied the requirements of Section 41-5-15 as to the malpractice claims.”
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018-NMSC-002, 408 P.3d 1012. · cites it 4× “” Section 41-5-15. And the review is substantive.”
Leger v. Gerety, 2022-NMSC-007, 503 P.3d 349. · cites it 4× “See § 41-5-14 (1976, as amended 2021); § 41-5-15 (1976); § 41-5-20. The MMA also instituted a statute of repose, requiring plaintiffs to bring claims for medical malpractice “within three years after the date that the act of malpractice occurred.”
Garcia v. La Farge, 893 P.2d 428 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 2× “See NMSA1978, § 41-5-15(A) (Repl.Pamp.1989) (requiring application to Medical Review Commission before medical malpractice action may be filed).”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “” Similarly, Section 41-5-15, which requires submission of claims to the Commission prior to filing suit, refers to “qualifying health care provider.”
Belser v. O'cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, 114 P.3d 303. · cites it 2× “District Court’s Authority to Dismiss {6} Plaintiff additionally argues, relying on Rupp, that the district court did not have the authority to dismiss her complaint. The Medical Malpractice Act provides that a medical malpractice action against a health care provider qualifying…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-15(A): 17 cases
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). “The specific claim was that the filing of the lawsuit violated Section 41-5-15(A). The trial court granted the motions of Layne and the Corporation; plaintiff appeals.”
Jiron v. Mahlab, 659 P.2d 311 (N.M. 1983). “In June 1982, the Jirons made application for review by the Medical Review Commission as required by Section 41-5-15. Thus, the malpractice suit was instituted prior to application to or decision by the Medical Review Commission in order to insure the court's personal…”
Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 796 P.2d 599 (N.M. 1990). “§ 41-5-15(A). Upon receipt of an application a panel is selected, § 41-5-17, and after consideration of all relevant material, the panel decides only two questions, namely, "(1) whether there is substantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute…”
Garcia v. La Farge, 893 P.2d 428 (N.M. 1995). “See NMSA1978, § 41-5-15(A) (Repl.Pamp.1989) (requiring application to Medical Review Commission before medical malpractice action may be filed).”
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018-NMSC-002, 408 P.3d 1012. “” Section 41-5-15. And the review is substantive.”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-15(B): 2 cases
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851. “” Section 41-5-15(A). Pertinent to the case before us here, the application must include “a brief statement of the facts of the case, naming the persons involved, the dates and the circumstances, so far as they are known, of the alleged .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., No. A-1-CA-35177 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017).
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-15(B)(1): 2 cases
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851. “” Section 41-5-15(A). Pertinent to the case before us here, the application must include “a brief statement of the facts of the case, naming the persons involved, the dates and the circumstances, so far as they are known, of the alleged .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., No. A-1-CA-35177 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017).
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-15(B)(l): 2 cases
Trujillo v. Puro, 683 P.2d 963 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). “Plaintiff’s application satisfied the requirements of Section 41-5-15 as to the malpractice claims.”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
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.