N.M. Stat. § 41-9-4 (2026)

No person who is a member or employee of, who acts in an advisory capacity to or
who furnishes counsel or services to a review organization shall be liable for damages
or other relief in any action brought by a person or persons whose activities have been
or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization by reason of the
performance by the person of any duty, function or activity of such review organization,
unless the performance of such duty, function or activity was done with malice toward
the person affected thereby. No person shall be liable for damages or other relief in any
action by reason of the performance of the person of any duty, function or activity as a
member of a review organization or by reason of any recommendation or action of the
review organization when the person acts in the reasonable belief that the person's
action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to the person or the review
organization after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which the review
organization's action or recommendation is made.

History: Laws 1979, ch. 169, § 4.

                                     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.
Applicability of section. — Under this section, liability for statements is limited to those
motivated by malice and is also limited to a person who is either a member of or an
employee of the review organization, or a person who acts in an advisory capacity to or
furnishes counsel or services to the review organization. Leyba v. Renger, 874 F. Supp.
1218 (D.N.M. 1994).

Immunity under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act. — The Health
Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101 -11152 (1986) creates a rebuttable
presumption of immunity from damages for participants of professional peer review
actions if the review process is reasonable. To rebut the presumption, plaintiff must
show that the fact-finding process was not reasonable in its totality. The act does not
require that participants at every level of a peer review action perform an independent
investigation of the facts. Participants in later stages of the review process are entitled
to rely on information gathered in earlier stages. The presumption of reasonableness is
not overcome simply by identifying one piece of factually questionable evidence upon
which a peer review committee relied or by questioning the integrity or motivations of
individuals conducting the peer review. The failure of professional peer review to comply
with defendant’s applicable peer review process does not render the fact-finding
process unreasonable. Summers v. Ardent Health Servs., LLC, 2011-NMSC-017, 150
N.M. 123, 257 P.3d 943, rev'g 2010-NMCA-026, 147 N.M. 506, 226 P.3d 20.

Investigation by plaintiff’s medical peers was reasonable as a matter of law. —
Where defendant suspended plaintiff’s medical privileges based on plaintiff's use of
inappropriate sexually explicit language with patients; defendant claimed immunity from
suit under 42 U.S.C. §11112 of the Health Care Quality Act of 1986; the suspension
was based primarily on a consideration by an ad hoc review committee of notes taken
by a case manager during a telephone interview of the complaining patient after the
patient had been discharged from the hospital; neither the case manager nor the
complaining patient were ever contacted or questioned by defendant regarding the
incident; and plaintiff’s privileges were suspended after two investigations by separate
ad hoc committees that included a review of the records of plaintiff’s patients, reviews of
the ad hoc committee reports by defendant’s medical executive committee, an appeal to
a professional review committee at which plaintiff presented evidence and cross-
examined witnesses, a final review by defendant’s appellate review committee, and a
review by defendant’s board of trustees of the entire record, the fact-finding process
conducted by defendant was reasonable as a matter of law. Summers v. Ardent Health
Servs., LLC, 2011-NMSC-017, 150 N.M. 243, 257 P.3d 943, rev'g 2010-NMCA-026,
147 N.M. 506, 226 P.3d 20.