New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-9-1 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act [41-9-1 to 41-9-7 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Review Organization
Immunity Act".

History: Laws 1979, ch. 169, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Act's qualified immunity replaces common law absolute immunity. — This act
abolishes any common-law absolute immunity available to review organization
participants prior to its enactment, establishing instead a qualified immunity. Leyba v.
Renger, 1992-NMSC-061, 114 N.M. 686, 845 P.2d 780.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Tort liability of medical society or
professional association for failure to discipline or investigate negligent or otherwise
incompetent medical practitioner, 72 A.L.R.4th 1148.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Sw. Cmty. Health Servs. v. Smith, 755 P.2d 40 (N.M. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sw. Cmty. Health Servs. v. Smith, 755 P.2d 40 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 4× “Further, it recognizes that candor and objectivity in the critical evaluation of medical professionals by medical professionals is necessary for the efficacy of the review process.”

Chavez v. Lovelace Sandia Health Sys., Inc., 189 P.3d 711 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery or to require Defendant to submit a log of withheld documents and to submit those documents for in camera review.”

Summers v. Ardent Health Servs. L.L.C., 257 P.3d 943 (N.M. 2011). · cites it 2× “Defendants also raised the defense of immunity under the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (ROIA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-9-1 to -7 (1979). The district court concluded that the HCQIA was determinative of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and thus did not address the…”

Leyba v. Renger, 845 P.2d 780 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “1990) and SCRA 1986, 12-607: Did the enactment of the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (NMROIA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-9-1 to -7 (Repl.Pamp.1989), abrogate the absolute immunity created by Franklin v.”

Clough v. Adventist Health Sys., Inc., 780 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1989). “Having found that no defamation exists, we do not consider the application of the Review Organization Immunity Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 41-9-1 to -7 (Repl.Pamp.1986) to the defamation claim here.”

Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., 2015 NMSC 012 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “A jury determined that Eastern violated the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (ROIA), NMSA 1978, Sections 41-9-1 to -7 (1979, as amended through 2011), and concluded that this violation proximately caused Dr.”

Quimbey ex rel. Faure v. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof'l Servs. Corp., 222 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the Court undertook an in camera review of documents, which Defendant Las Cruces Medical Center, LLC (“Defendant Hospital”) contends are protected by the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (“ROIA”), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-9-1 to 41-9-7 (1978), and the…”

Osuagwu v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D.N.M. 2012). “1978 §§ 41-9-1 to -7.” 3 Doc. 57 at 1. I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS Under HCQIA, any health-care entity that takes final peer-review action 4 that adversely affects a physician’s hospital privileges for a period longer than thirty days must report that final action to the state…”

United Tort v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC (In re Otero Cnty. Hosp. Ass'n), 527 B.R. 719 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2015). “§ 41-9-1 through § 41-9-7 ("ROIA”), and not discoverable.”

Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., 2013 NMCA 096 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The jury determined that Eastern violated the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (the ROIA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-9-1 to -7 (1979, as amended through 2011), and breached an implied promise in Dr.”

State v. Shawan, 423 P.2d 39 (N.M. 1967). “The offense charged in Count II, that is, unlawfully drawing or discharging a firearm in a settlement, is of the grade of a felony, and § 41-9-1, Third, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., was at the time of the commission of the alleged offense the applicable statute of limitations.”

State v. Oliver, 378 P.2d 135 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 2× “” (Section 41-9-1, 1953 Comp.) “If after any offense is committed, the defendant shall flee from, or go out of the state, or shall conceal himself or herself within it, the prosecution may be commenced within the time above prescribed, after the defendant coming into the state,…”

Show all 17 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.