In any malpractice claim where the panel has determined that the acts complained
of were or reasonably might constitute malpractice and that the patient was or may have
been injured by the act, the panel, its members, the director and the professional
association concerned will cooperate fully with the patient in retaining a physician
qualified in the field of medicine involved, who will consult with, assist in trial preparation
and testify on behalf of the patient, upon his payment of a reasonable fee to the same
effect as if the physician had been engaged originally by the patient.
History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-23, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 23.
ANNOTATIONS
Emergency clauses. — Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 32 contained an emergency clause and
was approved February 27, 1976.
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. — 31A Am. Jur. 2d Expert and Opinion
Evidence §§ 19, 20, 40.
Necessity of expert evidence to support an action for malpractice against a physician or
surgeon, 81 A.L.R.2d 597.
Competency of general practitioner to testify as expert witness in action against
specialist for medical malpractice, 31 A.L.R.3d 1163.
Competence of physician or surgeon from one locality to testify, in malpractice case, as
to standard of care required of defendant practicing in another locality, 37 A.L.R.3d 420.
Necessity and sufficiency of expert evidence to establish existence and extent of
physician's duty to inform patient of risks of proposed treatment, 52 A.L.R.3d 1084.
Notes of Decisions
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.
· cites it 2× “]” Section 41-5-23. There is no similar statutory precondition to bringing a common law action, and the common law has no requirement for a plaintiff to be provided assistance in securing a medical expert.”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, 4 N.M. 700.
· cites it 2× “In exchange for the burdens placed on patients who receive medical care from qualified health care providers, the Act provides the following benefits to them: the ability to recover from the patient’s compensation fund, Section 41-5-25(G); assurance that future medical costs…”
Salazare v. St. Vincent Hosp., 631 P.2d 315 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “All parties having voluntarily submitted to the statutory malpractice screening procedure, however, defendants' lack of status may not deprive plaintiff of the benefit of the expert witness provision (§ 41-5-23), or to the tolling of any statute of limitations during the…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “”); § 41-5-22 (discussing “[t]he running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim”); § 41-5-23 (“In any malpractice claim where the panel has determined that the acts complained of were or reasonably might constitute malpractice and that the patient was or may…”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 2000-NMCA-026, 997 P.2d 823.
· cites it 2× “See § 41-5-23. If the panel is evenly divided as to whether the applicant has presented substantial evidence, then the Director casts the deciding vote.”
Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 4 N.M. 574.
· cites it 2× “]” Section 41-5-23. There is no similar statutory precondition to bringing a common law action, and the common law has no requirement for a plaintiff to be provided assistance in securing a medical expert.”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043.
· cites it 2× “{19} In exchange for the burdens placed on patients who receive medical care from qualified health care providers, the Act provides the following benefits to them: the ability to recover from the patient’s compensation fund, Section 41-5-25(G); assurance that future medical…”
Salopek v. Friedman, 308 P.3d 139 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “]” Section 41-5-23. There is no similar statutory precondition to bringing a common law action, and the common law has no requirement for a plaintiff to be provided assistance in securing a medical expert.”
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.