New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-22 (2026)

Tolling of statute of limitation.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim shall be tolled
upon submission of the case for the consideration of the panel and shall not commence
to run again until thirty days after the panel's final decision is entered in the permanent
files of the commission and a copy is served upon the claimant and his attorney by
certified mail.
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-22, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 22.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Emergency clauses. — Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 32 contained an emergency clause and
was approved February 27, 1976.

Amended application adding a new party does not relate back to the original filing
date. — The filing of an application with the medical review commission as to one
provider does not toll the limitations period as to another provider who was not named in
the original application and for whom the statutory period in which to file a cause of
action has passed. Meza v. Topalovski, 2012-NMCA-002, 268 P.3d 1284.

Where plaintiff wrongly named a health care provider in an application before the
medical review commission; plaintiff amended the application to name the correct health
care provider; and the amended application to add the correct health care provider was
filed more than three years after the date of the alleged malpractice by the correct
health care provider, the original application did not toll the statute of limitations for the
untimely application filed against the originally unnamed health care provider. Meza v.
Topalovski, 2012-NMCA-002, 268 P.3d 1284.

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).

Mailing decision to claimant's attorney suffices. — Mailing of the final decision of
the medical review commission to a claimant in care of claimant's attorney is sufficient
service for the purpose of determining recommencement of the limitation period relating
to medical malpractice actions. Saiz v. Barham, 1983-NMCA-132, 100 N.M. 596, 673
P.2d 1329, cert. denied, 100 N.M. 689, 675 P.2d 421.

Claim submitted as of date of mailing. — A claim is considered to have been
submitted to the medical review commission as of the date that the application for the
claim is mailed to the commission. 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.
Negligence prior to effective date of act. — This section does not apply to toll the
running of the general limitation period for a personal injury claim [37-1-8 NMSA 1978],
where the act of malpractice has occurred prior to the effective date of the Medical
Malpractice Act, February 27, 1976 [Chapter 41, Article 5 NMSA 1978]. Loesch v.
Henderson, 1985-NMCA-104, 103 N.M. 554, 710 P.2d 748.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — When statute of limitations begins to run
in dental malpractice suits, 3 A.L.R.4th 318.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Cahn v. Berryman, 2018 NMSC 2 (N.M. 2017).
Cahn v. Berryman, 2018 NMSC 2 (N.M. 2017). · cites it 8× “Under the provisions of Section 41-5-15(A), “[n]o malpractice action may be filed in any court against a qualifying health care provider before application is made to the medical review commission and its decision is rendered.” The statute of repose is tolled “until thirty days…”
Meza v. Topalovski, 2012 NMCA 2 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “The Original Filing Date in an Application to the MRC Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for an Untimely Application Against a Previously Unnamed Health Care Provider {8} Section 41-5-22 of the MMA states that “[t]he running of the applicable limitation period in a…”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 6× “In Grantland, we held that Section 41-5-22, which tolls the Act’s statute of limitations period upon the filing of a claim with the Medical Review Commission, applies to nonqualified as well as qualified health care providers.”
Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 796 P.2d 599 (N.M. 1990). · cites it 12× “Submission of a case for the consideration of the panel tolls the statute of limitations period until thirty days after the panel's final decision is entered in the permanent files of the commission and a copy is served upon the claimant and his attorney by certified mail.”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NMSC 001 (N.M. 2019). · cites it 9× “Lovelace filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims against Lovelace were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff responded that her complaint against Lovelace was not barred because prior to filing the complaint she filed an application to the MRC…”
Saiz v. Barham, 673 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 12× “) NMSA 1978, § 41-5-22 (Repl. Pamp.1982). The appeal involves the emphasized portion of this statute.”
Tomlinson v. George, 2005 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2005). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 41-5-22 (1976) provides that "[t]he running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim shall be tolled upon submission of the case for the consideration of the panel and shall not commence to run again until thirty days after the panel’s final…”
Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs. of New Mexico, P. C., 918 P.2d 1321 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 2× “2d 599, 601 (1990) (concluding that Section 41-5-22, which tolls the limitations period upon submission of a case to the commission, should be applied equally to claims against both qualified and non-qualified health care providers), and Otero v.”
Loesch ex rel. Loesch v. Henderson, 710 P.2d 748 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 20× “The tolling provision involved in this appeal is Section 41-5-22. We are not concerned with the details of tolling; our concern is whether Section 41-5-22 applies to plaintiffs’ malpractice claim.”
Rupp v. Hurley, 979 P.2d 733 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “§ 41-5-22. However, Plaintiff was in a dilemma, according to her counsel, because she could not serve the complaint on those defendants who were qualified health care providers prior to the decision by the Medical Review Commission.”
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “We assume, but do not decide, that the application mailed December 7, 1981, invoked the tolling provisions of Section 41-5-22. The only lawsuit against Zouhar is the one commenced by the complaint filed December 4, 1981.”
Rupp v. Hurley, 2002 NMCA 023 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The limitation period may be tolled pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 41-5-22 (1976) which provides that “[t]he running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim shall be tolled upon submission of the ease for the consideration of the [MRC] panel and shall not…”
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.