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

N.M. Stat. § 41-5-8 (2026)

Medical benefits prior to judgment.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A health care provider named as a defendant in a malpractice claim, or named as a
respondent in a proceeding before the medical review commission created in the
Medical Malpractice Act, shall have the option of paying for the patient's medical care
and related benefits at any time prior to the entry of a judgment. Except as provided in
Section 11 [41-5-11 NMSA 1978] of the Medical Malpractice Act, evidence of a health
care provider's payment for such benefits shall not be admissible in the trial of the
malpractice claim brought against it.

History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-8, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 8.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Emergency clauses. — Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 32 contained an emergency clause and
was approved February 27, 1976.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1973–2017 · leading case: State v. Smith, 591 P.2d 664 (N.M. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 591 P.2d 664 (N.M. 1979). “1978 [formerly § 41-5-8, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.1972)]. Smith has not forwarded the grand jury minutes to this Court, so again, we have no record to review.”
Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). “00); § 41-5-7(H) (making "health care provider” personally liable for punitive damages); § 41-5-8 (making evidence of prejudgment payment of injured person’s medical expenses by "health care provider” inadmissible at trial); § 41-5-9(D) (alloeating burden of proving need for…”
State v. Sparks, 512 P.2d 1265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “In light of § 41-5-8, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6), which was enacted subsequent to the decision in State v.”
State v. Baird, 568 P.2d 204 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). “The recorded testimony was transcribed by the “official court reporter” who, in typing the transcript, omitted testimony with the notation “inaudible”.”
State v. Felter, 515 P.2d 138 (N.M. 1973). “In any event, the solution to the problem of availability of “grand jury testimony” is found in § 41-5-8, N.M.S.A.1953 (2nd Repl. Vol. 6, 1972), and not in any language in the Mascarenas case.”
Romero v. Lovelace Health Sys. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “, § 41-5-8 (stating that a health care provider named as a respondent 18 in a proceeding before the Commission has the option of paying for a patient’s 19 medical care and related benefits prior to the entry of a judgment); § 41-5-16(A), (B) 18 1 (stating that when an…”
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.