A. Applications for review shall be promptly transmitted by the director of the New
Mexico medical review commission to the directors of the independent provider's state
professional society or association and the state bar association, who shall each select
three panelists within thirty days from the date of transmittal of the application.
B. If no state professional society or association exists or if the independent
provider does not belong to a society or association, the director shall transmit the
application to the independent provider's state licensing board, which shall in turn select
three persons from the independent provider's profession and, where applicable, two
persons specializing in the same field or discipline as the independent provider.
C. In cases where there are multiple defendants, a single combined panel shall
review the claims against all party defendants. At the discretion of the panel chair, a
hearing involving multiple defendants may include fewer than three panelists from the
independent provider's profession and fewer than three lawyer panel members per
defendant.
D. Except for cases involving multiple defendants, three panel members from the
independent provider's profession and three panel members from the state bar
association shall sit in review in each case.
E. The director of the medical review commission or the director's delegate, who
shall be an attorney, shall sit on each panel and serve as chair.
F. A member shall disqualify the member's self from consideration of a case in
which, by virtue of circumstances, the member feels the member's presence on the
panel would be inappropriate, considering the purpose of the panel. The director may
excuse a proposed panelist from serving.
G. Whenever a party makes and files an affidavit that a panel member selected
pursuant to this section cannot, according to the belief of the party making the affidavit,
sit in review of the application with impartiality, that panel member shall proceed no
further. Another panel member shall be selected by the independent provider's
professional association, state licensing board or the state bar association, as the case
may be. A party may not disqualify more than three proposed panel members in this
manner in any single malpractice claim.
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-17, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 17; 2021, ch. 16, §
10.
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, mandated
that a single combined panel review the claims against all party defendants in cases
where there are multiple defendants, provided the panel chair the discretion to revise
the composition of the New Mexico medical review commission panel when a hearing
involves multiple defendants, and removed a provision relating to the composition of a
panel in certain cases where the theory of respondeat superior or any other derivative
theory of recovery is employed; preceding each occurrence of "provider", changed
"health care" to "independent" throughout the section; in Subsection A, after "director",
added "of the New Mexico medical review commission"; in Subsection C, after "multiple
defendants", deleted "the case against each health care provider may be reviewed by a
separate panel, or", after "combined panel", changed "may" to "shall", after "against all",
deleted "parties defendant, at the discretion of the director" and added the remainder of
the subsection; in Subsection D, added "Except for cases involving multiple
defendants"; deleted former Subsection E and redesignated former Subsections F
through H as Subsections E through G, respectively; and in Subsection E, added
"medical review" preceding "commission".
Law reviews. — For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7
N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons,
and Other Healers §§ 374 to 376.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1984–2019 · leading case:
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
· cites it 5× “See § 41-5-17(E) (“In those cases where the theory of respondeat superior .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851.
· cites it 4× “Section 41-5-17(A)-(D). Following a hearing, the panel deliberates and decides two questions: “(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…”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992).
“right of "health care provider” to recover such payments in the event the provider is not found liable); § 41-5-13 (providing accrual rule and statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions against “health care provider”); § 41-5-16(A), (B), (C) (discussing procedures…”
Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 796 P.2d 599 (N.M. 1990).
· cites it 2× “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 malpractice;…”
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…”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
· cites it 5× “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). Three…”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043.
· cites it 5× “See § 41-5-17(E) (“In those cases where the theory of respondeat superior .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., No. A-1-CA-35177 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017).
· cites it 2× “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 application is received, the Commission must serve a copy of the 2 application to the…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-17(A): 3 cases
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992).
“right of "health care provider” to recover such payments in the event the provider is not found liable); § 41-5-13 (providing accrual rule and statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions against “health care provider”); § 41-5-16(A), (B), (C) (discussing procedures…”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851.
“Section 41-5-17(A)-(D). Following a hearing, the panel deliberates and decides two questions: “(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…”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
“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). Three…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-17(B): 1 case
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
“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). Three…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-17(C): 1 case
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
“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). Three…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-17(E): 4 cases
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
“See § 41-5-17(E) (“In those cases where the theory of respondeat superior .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020-NMSC-001, 455 P.3d 851.
“Section 41-5-17(A)-(D). Following a hearing, the panel deliberates and decides two questions: “(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…”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043.
“See § 41-5-17(E) (“In those cases where the theory of respondeat superior .”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., No. A-1-CA-35177 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017).
“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 application is received, the Commission must serve a copy of the 2 application to the…”
N.M. Stat. § 41-5-17(F): 1 case
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
“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). Three…”
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.