N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 41 / Article 5
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-16 (2026)

Application procedure.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. Upon receipt of an application for review, the New Mexico medical review
commission's director or the director's designee shall cause to be served a true copy of
the application on the independent providers against which claims are asserted.
Service shall be effected pursuant to New Mexico law. If the independent provider
involved chooses to retain legal counsel, the independent provider's attorney shall
informally enter an appearance with the director.

    B. The independent provider shall answer the application for review and in addition
shall submit 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.

    C. In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat
superior or some other derivative theory of recovery, the director shall forward such
applications to the state professional societies, associations or licensing boards of both
the individual independent provider whose alleged malpractice caused the application to
be filed and the independent provider named a respondent as employer, master or
principal.

History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-16, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 16; 2021, ch. 16, §
9.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

The 2021 amendment, effective January 1, 2022, made changes to conform to the new
definition of "independent provider" as used in the Medical Malpractice Act; in
Subsection A, added "New Mexico medical review" preceding "commission's", and
changed "health care" to "independent" preceding "provider" throughout the section.
Limitation on authority of director. — The director does not have any discretion to
redact an applicant's legal claims or factual averments in a medical malpractice action
from an application to the commission. Kucel v. N.M. Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-
NMCA-026, 128 N.M. 691, 997 P.2d 823, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 688, 997 P.2d 820.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons §§
110 to 113.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “See §§ 41-5-16, -17, -19, -20. The third occurrence, in Section 41-5-25(B), imposes an annual surcharge on “all health care providers qualifying under" Section 41-5-5(A)(l) to finance the , Patient's Compensation Fund.”
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018 NMSC 2 (N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Section 41-5-16(B). Eventually, 18 the panel must hold a hearing on the matter; and post-hearing, should the panel conclude it still lacks relevant information for purposes of making the determinations required by statute, the panel “may request that additional facts, records,…”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013 NMSC 043 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 2× “The MMA recognizes that a claim may be brought against a health care provider under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Section 41-5-16(C), which provides: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory…”
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Although Section 41-5-22 is silent as to how service is effected, NMSA 1978, Section 41-5-16(A) (Repl.Pamp.1982) indicates a basis for determining when service occurred.”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NMSC 001 (N.M. 2019). · cites it 2× “Section 41-5-16(C). The full text of this provision reads as follows: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory of recovery, the director shall forward such applications to the state professional…”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 997 P.2d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Once the application is received, the Director serves a copy of the application on the health care provider involved, see § 41-5-16(A), and transmits the application to the health care provider’s professional society, association, or licensing board, see § 41-5-17(A).”
Ferlic v. Lovelace Health Sys., LLC (N.M. 2026). · cites it 4× “See § 41-5-14 (1976), § 41-5-16 (1976), 4 and § 14 41-5-17 (1976).”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013 NMSC 43 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 2× “The MMA recognizes that a claim may be brought against a health care provider under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Section 41-5-16(C), which provides: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “, § 41-5-8 (stating that a health care provider named as a respondent 18 in a proceeding before the Commission has the option of paying for a patient’s 19 medical care and related benefits prior to the entry of a judgment); § 41-5-16(A), (B) 18 1 (stating that when an…”
Cahn v. Berryman (N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Section 41-5-16(B). Eventually, the panel must hold a hearing on the 15 matter; and post-hearing, should the panel conclude it still lacks relevant information 16 for purposes of making the determinations required by statute, the panel “may request 17 that additional facts,…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-16(A): 4 cases
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Although Section 41-5-22 is silent as to how service is effected, NMSA 1978, Section 41-5-16(A) (Repl.Pamp.1982) indicates a basis for determining when service occurred.”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). “See §§ 41-5-16, -17, -19, -20. The third occurrence, in Section 41-5-25(B), imposes an annual surcharge on “all health care providers qualifying under" Section 41-5-5(A)(l) to finance the , Patient's Compensation Fund.”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 997 P.2d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). “Once the application is received, the Director serves a copy of the application on the health care provider involved, see § 41-5-16(A), and transmits the application to the health care provider’s professional society, association, or licensing board, see § 41-5-17(A).”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “, § 41-5-8 (stating that a health care provider named as a respondent 18 in a proceeding before the Commission has the option of paying for a patient’s 19 medical care and related benefits prior to the entry of a judgment); § 41-5-16(A), (B) 18 1 (stating that when an…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-16(B): 2 cases
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018 NMSC 2 (N.M. 2017). “” Section 41-5-16(B). Eventually, 18 the panel must hold a hearing on the matter; and post-hearing, should the panel conclude it still lacks relevant information for purposes of making the determinations required by statute, the panel “may request that additional facts, records,…”
Cahn v. Berryman (N.M. 2017). “” Section 41-5-16(B). Eventually, the panel must hold a hearing on the 15 matter; and post-hearing, should the panel conclude it still lacks relevant information 16 for purposes of making the determinations required by statute, the panel “may request 17 that additional facts,…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-16(C): 4 cases
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013 NMSC 043 (N.M. 2013). “The MMA recognizes that a claim may be brought against a health care provider under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Section 41-5-16(C), which provides: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NMSC 001 (N.M. 2019). “Section 41-5-16(C). The full text of this provision reads as follows: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory of recovery, the director shall forward such applications to the state professional…”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013 NMSC 43 (N.M. 2013). “The MMA recognizes that a claim may be brought against a health care provider under the doctrine of respondeat superior in Section 41-5-16(C), which provides: In instances where applications are received employing the theory of respondeat superior or some other derivative theory…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “, § 41-5-8 (stating that a health care provider named as a respondent 18 in a proceeding before the Commission has the option of paying for a patient’s 19 medical care and related benefits prior to the entry of a judgment); § 41-5-16(A), (B) 18 1 (stating that when an…”
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.