N.M. Stat. § 41-5-6 (2026)

A. Except for punitive damages and past and future medical care and related
benefits, the aggregate dollar amount recoverable by all persons for or arising from any
injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice shall not exceed six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence for malpractice claims brought against
health care providers if the injury or death occurred prior to January 1, 2022. In jury
cases, the jury shall not be given any instructions dealing with this limitation.

     B. Except for punitive damages and past and future medical care and related
benefits, the aggregate dollar amount recoverable by all persons for or arising from any
injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice shall not exceed seven hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) per occurrence for malpractice claims against
independent providers; provided that, beginning January 1, 2023, the per occurrence
limit on recovery shall be adjusted annually by the consumer price index for all urban
consumers.

    C. The aggregate dollar amount recoverable by all persons for or arising from any
injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice, except for punitive damages and
past and future medical care and related benefits, shall not exceed seven hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($750,000) for claims brought against an independent outpatient
health care facility for an injury or death that occurred in calendar years 2022 and 2023.
    D. In calendar year 2024 and subsequent years, the aggregate dollar amount
recoverable by all persons for or arising from an injury or death to a patient as a result
of malpractice, except for punitive damages and past and future medical care and
related benefits, shall not exceed the following amounts for claims brought against an
independent outpatient health care facility:

       (1)    for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2024, one million
dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and

       (2)   for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2025 and thereafter,
the amount provided in Paragraph (1) of this subsection, adjusted annually by the prior
three-year average consumer price index for all urban consumers, per occurrence.

    E. In calendar year 2022 and subsequent calendar years, the aggregate dollar
amount recoverable by all persons for or arising from any injury or death to a patient as
a result of malpractice, except for punitive damages and past and future medical care
and related benefits, shall not exceed the following amounts for claims brought against
a hospital or a hospital-controlled outpatient health care facility:

       (1)    for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2022, four million
dollars ($4,000,000) per occurrence;

      (2)   for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2023, four million five
hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) per occurrence;

       (3)    for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2024, five million
dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence;

      (4)   for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2025, five million five
hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000) per occurrence;

       (5)    for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2026, six million
dollars ($6,000,000) per occurrence; and

       (6)   for an injury or death that occurred in calendar year 2027 and each
calendar year thereafter, the amount provided in Paragraph (5) of this subsection,
adjusted annually by the consumer price index for all urban consumers, per occurrence.

   F. The aggregate dollar amounts provided in Subsections B through E of this
section include payment to any person for any number of loss of consortium claims or
other claims per occurrence that arise solely because of the injuries or death of the
patient.

    G. In jury cases, the jury shall not be given any instructions dealing with the
limitations provided in this section.
   H. The value of accrued medical care and related benefits shall not be subject to
any limitation.

   I. Except for an independent outpatient health care facility, a health care provider's
personal liability is limited to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for monetary
damages and medical care and related benefits as provided in Section 41-5-7 NMSA
1978. Any amount due from a judgment or settlement in excess of two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000) shall be paid from the fund, except as provided in
Subsections J and K of this section.

    J. An independent outpatient health care facility's personal liability is limited to five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for monetary damages and medical care and
related benefits as provided in Section 41-5-7 NMSA 1978. Any amount due from a
judgment or settlement in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) shall be
paid from the fund.

     K. Until January 1, 2027, amounts due from a judgment or settlement against a
hospital or hospital-controlled outpatient health care facility in excess of seven hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($750,000), excluding past and future medical expenses, shall be
paid by the hospital or hospital-controlled outpatient health care facility and not by the
fund. Beginning January 1, 2027, amounts due from a judgment or settlement against a
hospital or hospital-controlled outpatient health care facility shall not be paid from the
fund.

    L. The term "occurrence" shall not be construed in such a way as to limit recovery
to only one maximum statutory payment if separate acts or omissions cause additional
or enhanced injury or harm as a result of the separate acts or omissions. A patient who
suffers two or more distinct injuries as a result of two or more different acts or omissions
that occur at different times by one or more health care providers is entitled to up to the
maximum statutory recovery for each injury.

History: 1978 Comp., § 41-5-6, enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 4; 2021, ch. 16, § 3;
2021 (2nd S.S.), ch. 5, § 2; 2023, ch. 207, § 3.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — 2021 (2nd S.S.), ch. 5, § 3 repealed Laws 2021, ch. 16, § 3, effective
January 1, 2022.

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 4 repealed former 41-5-6 NMSA
1978, as enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 3, and enacted a new section, effective April
1, 1995.

Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 4 repealed former 41-5-6 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws
1991, ch. 264, § 3, and enacted a new 41-5-6 NMSA 1978, effective July 1, 1992.
Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 3 repealed former 41-5-6 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws
1991, ch. 264, § 3, and as enacted by Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 4, and enacted a former
section, effective April 1, 1992.

The 2023 amendment, effective June 16, 2023, revised the limitation of recovery for
certain claims against facilities that are not hospital-controlled; in Subsection C, after
"shall not exceed", deleted "the following amounts" and added "seven hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($750,000)", after "brought against an", added "independent", after
"outpatient health care facility", deleted "that is not majority-owned and -controlled by a
hospital", after "calendar years 2022 and 2023", deleted "seven hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($750,000) per occurrence"; deleted former Paragraphs C(2) through C(5);
added a new Subsection D; redesignated former Subsections D through H as
Subsections E through I, respectively; in Subsection E, in the introductory clause, after
"against a hospital or", deleted "an" and added "a hospital-controlled", and after
"outpatient health care facility", deleted "that is majority-owned and -controlled by a
hospital"; in Subsection I, added "Except for an independent outpatient health care
facility"; added a new Subsection J; redesignated former Subsections I and J as
Subsections K and L, respectively; and in Subsection K, added "hospital-controlled"
preceding each occurrence of "outpatient health care facility".

The 2021 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 2022, raised personal liability
and recovery caps for legal damages in medical malpractice claims brought against
certain health care providers; in Subsection A, after "Except for punitive damages and",
added "past and future", and after "($600,000) per occurrence", added "for malpractice
claims brought against health care providers if the injury or death occurred prior to
January 1, 2022"; deleted former Subsection B, which provided "The value of accrued
medical care and related benefits shall not be subject to the six hundred thousand dollar
($600,000) limitation", added new Subsections B through F, and redesignated former
Subsections C and D as Subsections G and H, respectively; in Subsection G, deleted
"Monetary damages" and added "The value of accrued medical care and related
benefits", after "shall not be", deleted "awarded for future medical expenses in
malpractice claims" and added "subject to any limitation"; in Subsection H, after
"personal liability is limited to", deleted "two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)" and
added "two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)", after "in excess of", deleted "two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)" and added "two hundred fifty thousand dollars
($250,000)", after "paid from the", deleted "patient’s compensation", after "fund", added
"except", and after "provided in", deleted "Section 41-5-25 NMSA 1978" and added
"Subsection I of this section"; and deleted former Subsection E and added Subsections
I and J.

The constitutional right to trial by jury applies in cases brought under the Medical
Malpractice Act. — Because causes of action brought under the Medical Malpractice
Act (MMA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-1 to -29, can be more generally described as causes
of action in common-law medical negligence, and claims of common-law medical
negligence were triable to a jury at the time the New Mexico Constitution was adopted
and took effect, the constitutional right to trial by jury attaches to causes of action
brought under the MMA. Siebert v. Okun, 2021-NMSC-016, overruling in part Salopek
v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.

The Medical Malpractice Act’s nonmedical, nonpunitive damages cap does not
invade the province of the jury. — The MMA nonmedical, nonpunitive damages cap
gives legal consequence to the jury’s finding on damages and does not violate a
plaintiff’s right to a jury trial under NM Const., Art. II, Sec. 12, because the right to trial
by jury is satisfied when evidence is presented to a jury, which then deliberates and
returns a verdict based on its factual findings. The legal consequence of that verdict is
a matter of law, which the legislature has the authority to shape. Siebert v. Okun, 2021-
NMSC-016, overruling in part Salopek v. Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.

Where plaintiff successfully sued defendants for medical malpractice under the Medical
Malpractice Act (MMA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-1 to -29, and where, following the return
of the jury’s verdict, defendants moved to reduce the jury award of $2,600,000 to
conform with the $600,000 cap on all nonmedical and nonpunitive damages in MMA
actions, and where the district court denied defendants’ motion, concluding that the
MMA nonmedical, nonpunitive damages cap infringed the state constitutional right to a
trial by jury, the district court erred in denying defendants’ motion, because the MMA
nonmedical, nonpunitive damages cap merely gives legal consequence to the jury’s
finding on damages and does not violate a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial under NM
Const., Art. II, Sec. 12. Siebert v. Okun, 2021-NMSC-016, overruling in part Salopek v.
Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087, 308 P.3d 139.

Cap on medical malpractice damages is constitutional. — The cap on medical
malpractice damages does not violate the right to trial by jury under Article II, Section 12
of the New Mexico Constitution, the separation of powers clause in Article III, Section 1
of the New Mexico Constitution, the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution, or the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Salopek v.
Friedman, 2013-NMCA-087.

Pre- and post-judgment interest are recoverable on medical malpractice
judgments. — The availability of pre- and post-judgment interest on medical
malpractice judgments as one type of tort judgment, pursuant to 56-8-4 NMSA 1978, is
in harmony with the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), because nothing in the plain
language of the MMA disallows awards of interest or requires interest to be calculated in
a different fashion. Siebert v. Okun, M.D., 2024-NMCA-084.

Interest on medical malpractice judgments in excess of the statutory cap must be
paid by the patient's compensation fund. — Where plaintiff sued defendants for
medical malpractice, and where a jury awarded plaintiff an amount above the statutory
cap on nonmedical and nonpunitive damages imposed by the Medical Malpractice Act
(MMA), $200,000 of which would be paid by defendants pursuant to the cap on provider
liability in 41-5-6(D) NMSA 1978 and the remainder of which would be paid by the
patient's compensation fund, the district court erred by requiring defendants to pay
interest on the entire amount of the judgment. The patient's compensation fund must
pay the interest on the amount of damages in excess of the provider liability cap
because liability for interest must be allocated in accordance with the MMA's allocation
of liability for damages. Liability for interest on medical malpractice judgments must be
allocated consistent with the method of allocating liability for damages that the
legislature chose when it enacted the MMA. Siebert v. Okun, M.D., 2024-NMCA-084.

Limits of recovery. — This section is not arbitrary and capricious and is rationally
related to legislative goal of ensuring a source of recovery for victims of medical
malpractice and curbing runaway medical costs, relying in part on Trujillo v. City of
Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305; Fed. Express Corp. v.
United States, 228 F. Supp 2d 1267 (D.N.M. 2002).

County and municipal officials exceeded their authority by enacting abortion-
related ordinances preempted by state law. — Where several counties and
municipalities (respondents) enacted local ordinances prohibiting the mailing or receipt
of any abortion-related instrumentality and creating licensing schemes exclusive to
abortion clinics and providers, and where the state of New Mexico sought a writ of
mandamus and stay of respondents' enforcement of the ordinances and to invalidate
the ordinances as preempted by state law, the writ of mandamus was granted because
the ordinances plainly conflicted with the provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act, a
comprehensive statute, which sets malpractice insurance requirements and limitations
on liability for all health care providers in the state. State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty.
Comm'rs for Lea Cnty., 2025-NMSC-011.

Federal hospital. — Although not a "qualified health care provider" under 41-5-5 NMSA
1978, the liability of a federal hospital, operating in New Mexico, is subject to the
$600,000 cap in Subsection A, but not the $200,000 cap in Subsection D, which
assumes that the amount of damages in excess of $ 200,000 would be paid by the
compensation fund into which the federal government did not contribute. Haceesa v.
United States, 309 F.3d 722 (10th Cir. 2002).

Applicability. — Where it was held that tribal law controlled in a malpractice action
against the United States, the New Mexico medical malpractice cap did not apply.
Cheromiah v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D.N.M. 1999).

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. — 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages §§ 288, 289;
61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers §§ 367 to 371.

Contributory negligence or assumption of risk as defense in action against physician or
surgeon for malpractice, 50 A.L.R.2d 1043.

Liability of chiropodist, 80 A.L.R.2d 1278.
Validity and construction of state statutory provisions relating to limitations on amount of
recovery in medical malpractice claim and submission of such claim to pretrial panel, 80
A.L.R.3d 583, 26 A.L.R.5th 245.

Recovery, measure and element of damages, in action against dentist for breach of
contract to achieve particular result or cure, 11 A.L.R.4th 748.

Validity of statute establishing contingent fee scale for attorneys representing parties in
medical malpractice actions, 12 A.L.R.4th 23.

Validity of state statute providing for periodic payment of future damages in medical
malpractice action, 41 A.L.R.4th 275.

Future disease or condition, or anxiety relating thereto, as element of recovery, 50
A.L.R.4th 13.

Recovery in death action for failure to diagnose incurable disease which caused death,
64 A.L.R.4th 1232.

Medical malpractice: measure and elements of damages in actions based on loss of
chance, 81 A.L.R.4th 485.

What nonpatient claims against doctors, hospitals, or similar health care providers are
not subject to statutes specifically governing actions and damages for medical
malpractice, 88 A.L.R.4th 358.

Liability of hospital, physician, or other medical personnel for death or injury to mother
or child caused by improper diagnosis and treatment of mother relating to and during
pregnancy, 7 A.L.R.5th 1.

Validity, construction, and application of state statutory provisions limiting amount of
recovery in medical malpractice claims, 26 A.L.R.5th 245.

Liability of hospital or medical practitioner under doctrine of strict liability in tort, or
breach of warranty, for harm caused by drug, medical instrument, or similar device used
in treating patient, 65 A.L.R.5th 357.

70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons §§ 124, 127.