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

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-2 (2026)

Repealed.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-2, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 2; 1978 Comp., § 41-
5-2, repealed by Laws 2021, ch. 16, § 17.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2021, ch. 16, § 17 repealed 41-5-2 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws
1976, ch. 2, § 2, relating to purpose of act, effective January 1, 2022. For provisions of
former section, see the 2021 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Wilschinsky Ex Rel. Wilschinsky v. Medina, 775 P.2d 713 (N.M. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilschinsky Ex Rel. Wilschinsky v. Medina, 775 P.2d 713 (N.M. 1989). · cites it 8× “Through several procedural measures and by establishing a limitation on full recovery for malpractice injury, the Act restricted and limited plaintiffs' rights under the common law.”
Leger v. Gerety, 2022 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021). · cites it 8× “” Section 41-5-2 (1976). {15} To achieve this purpose, the MMA changed certain aspects of the traditional, common law, medical negligence cause of action.”
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “(a)(1) Section 41-5-2 states a legislative purpose of promoting “the health and welfare of the people of New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance for health care providers in New Mexico.”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “” Section 41-5-2. As has been widely 12 recognized, the MMA was enacted to address a perceived medical malpractice 13 crisis in New Mexico by “providing a framework for tort liability with which the 14 insurance industry could operate[,]” one that “restrict[s] and limit[s]…”
Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs. of New Mexico, P. C., 918 P.2d 1321 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 4× “” Section 41-5-2. In order to achieve such a legislative goal, a statutory scheme will often offer certain benefits to a specific group in exchange for compliance by that group with the requirements of a regulatory system.”
Garcia on Behalf of Garcia v. La Farge, 893 P.2d 428 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 2× “” Section 41-5-2. It is within the competence of the legislature to determine that the high costs of malpractice insurance distinguish the class of health care providers from the class of tortfeasors generally.”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “To achieve this goal, the legislature 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,…”
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018 NMSC 2 (N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “Section 41-5-2. The Legislature “concluded that the potential for a malpractice suit being filed long after the act of malpractice was one of the reasons that insurance carriers were withdrawing from medical malpractice liability coverage.”
New Mexico Physicians Mut. Liab. Co. v. LaMure, 860 P.2d 734 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 2× “” Section 41-5-2 (Repl.Pamp.1989). The Act is intended to increase the number of health care providers serving the public by facilitating their acquisition of professional liability insurance.”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2012 NMCA 73 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The 2010 legislation died during the session, while the 2011 legislation passed both houses but was vetoed by the Governor. {21} The asserted purpose of the MMA is “to promote the health and welfare of the people of New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance…”
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013 NMCA 87 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Of at least equal importance, the withdrawal jeopardized the remedy of a patient suffering because of the negligent acts of such a health care provider even though his right to a remedy could be established employing ordinary negligence principles.”
Lester Ex Rel. Mavrogenis v. Hall, 970 P.2d 590 (N.M. 1998). · cites it 2× “The Legislature’s determination that health care providers’ liability must be limited in order to assure New Mexicans’ access to medical care is demonstrated by damage caps, see NMSA 1978, § 41-5-6 (1992), a shorter statute of limitations, compare NMSA 1978, § 41-5-13 (1976)…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
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.