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

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-4 (2026)

Ad damnum clause.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A patient or his representative having a malpractice claim for bodily injury or death
may file a complaint in any court of law having requisite jurisdiction and demand right of
trial by jury. No dollar amount or figure shall be included in the demand in any complaint
asserting a malpractice claim and filed after the effective date of this section, but the
request shall be for such damages as are reasonable. This section shall not prevent a
patient or his representative from alleging a requisite jurisdictional amount in a
malpractice claim filed in a court requiring such an allegation.

History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-4, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 4; 1977, ch. 284, § 2.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Emergency clauses. — Laws 1977, ch. 284, § 5 contained an emergency clause and
was approved April 7, 1977.
Cross references. — For jurisdictional amount in magistrate court, see 35-3-3 NMSA
1978.

For commencement of action in district court, see Rule 1-003 NMRA.

For commencement of action by complaint in magistrate court, see Rule 2-201 NMRA.

This section refers to jurisdiction, not venue, and 38-3-1 NMSA 1978 governs venue
in an action brought under the Medical Malpractice Act [Chapter 41, Article 5 NMSA
1978]. Bullock v. Lehman, 1983-NMCA-024, 99 N.M. 515, 660 P.2d 605.

"Representative". — The "representative" who may bring suit for a death under this
section means the same thing as the personal representative under the wrongful death
statute. Mackey v. Burke, 1984-NMCA-028, 102 N.M. 294, 694 P.2d 1359, cert.
quashed, 102 N.M. 293, 694 P.2d 1358 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Chavez
v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 1985-NMSC-114, 103 N.M. 606, 711 P.2d 883.

Qualification of personal representative. — Where an original pleading alleged a
valid cause of action, relation back of the appointment of the plaintiff as personal
representative to the initial filing of the action did not compromise this section nor the
statute of limitations. Chavez v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 1985-NMSC-114, 103 N.M.
606, 711 P.2d 883.

Law reviews. — For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7
N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Davis v. Traub, 565 P.2d 1015 (N.M. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Traub, 565 P.2d 1015 (N.M. 1977). · cites it 4× “This claim has no merit because grand jury aides are not authorized by statute to be present in the grand jury room unless they fall within the categories specified in § 41-5-4, supra, as district attorneys, interpreters, court reporters, etc.”
MacKey Ex Rel. MacKey v. Burke, 694 P.2d 1359 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “1982), describes the right of action at Section 41-5-4, which reads in part: “A patient or his representative having a malpractice claim for bodily injury or death may file a complaint in any court of law having requisite jurisdiction * * *.”
Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 2× “1980)); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-4 (West 1996) (providing that “no dollar amount or figure shall be included in the demand in any complaint asserting a malpractice claim”); Tex.”
State v. Hill, 539 P.2d 236 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 6× “In addition, he testified that at the time of the presentment, he was employed on a fee basis, not by the State, but by L. M. Miski-men, father-in-law of the deceased.”
Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013 NMSC 043 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 3× “efits to qualified providers are a cap on damages ($600,000, excluding punitive damages and medical care costs in excess of that amount), Section 41-5-6(A) & (B); the prohibition of monetary awards for future medical expenses (they must be paid out as they accrue rather than in…”
Leger v. Gerety, 444 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “”1 1 See § 41-5-4 (“A patient or his representative having a malpractice claim for bodily injury or death may file a complaint in any court of law having requisite jurisdiction and demand right of trial by jury.”
Baird v. State, 568 P.2d 193 (N.M. 1977). · cites it 2× “The second is whether defendant’s claims of impropriety in the grand jury proceedings may be waived by the plea negotiation process, the subsequent entry of a plea of no contest, and the conviction and sentence of the court based upon that plea bargain and plea.”
State v. Blakley, 568 P.2d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 41-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol.”
Otero v. Zouhar, 697 P.2d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “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…”
Leger v. Gerety, 2022 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021). “Rather, these claims are variously described as a “malpractice claim for bodily injury or death,” § 41-5-4; as recovery “for or arising from any injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice,” § 41-5-6(A); as a “claim for malpractice arising out of an act of…”
State v. Baird, 568 P.2d 204 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “Section 41-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol.”
Bullock v. Lehman, 660 P.2d 605 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff’s appeal claims that § 41-5-4 governs venue, and that under § 41-5 — 4 venue in Santa Fe County was proper.”
Show all 16 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.