N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 43 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 43-1-7 (2026)

Right to treatment.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Each resident client receiving mental health services shall have the right to prompt
treatment pursuant to an individualized treatment plan and consistent with the least
drastic means principle.

History: 1953 Comp., § 34-2A-6, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 279, § 6.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Law reviews. — For article, "Treating Children Under the New Mexico Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities Code," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 279 (1980).
43-1-8. Right to habilitation.
    Each resident client receiving developmental disabilities services shall have the right
to prompt habilitation services pursuant to an individualized habilitation plan and
consistent with the least drastic means principle.

History: 1953 Comp., § 34-2A-7, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 279, § 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1990–2015 · leading case: New Mexico Dep't of Health v. Compton, 34 P.3d 593 (N.M. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Mexico Dep't of Health v. Compton, 34 P.3d 593 (N.M. 2001). · cites it 8× “As a result, we believe that the purpose of requiring a hearing within three days is to ensure that clients receive appropriate and necessary treatment at the earliest opportunity.”
State v. Rotherham, 923 P.2d 1131 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 4× “The MHDDC provides that persons receiving mental health services, Section 43-1-7, and persons receiving developmental disabilities services, Section 43-1-8, each have the right to services consistent with the least drastic means principle.”
Garcia v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 816 P.2d 510 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 43-1-7 (Repl.Pamp.1989) states: Each resident client receiving mental health services shall have the right to prompt treatment pursuant to an individualized treatment plan and consistent with the least drastic means principle.”
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch., 757 F. Supp. 1243 (D.N.M. 1990). · cites it 2× “Yet, despite the lengthy stated requirements, testimony at trial showed that FSH & TS does not in fact expect a resident to meet all the programmatic goals listed in the resident’s discharge plan, but rather showed that these are merely “suggested” criteria.”
Prot. & Advocacy Sys. v. City of Albuquerque, 195 P.3d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). “”); § 43-1-7 (“Right to treatment.”), whereas in others, the Code refers to a broader range of clients, as the Code does in Section 43-l-15(A).”
A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Dep't of Health, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1220 (D.N.M. 2015). · cites it 2× “” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 43-1-7 . The civil commitment statutory framework specifies that each individualized treatment plan shall include “a statement of the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of treatment,” and “criteria for release to less restrictive…”
LaBalbo v. Hymes, 850 P.2d 1017 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “, § 43-l-3(B) (definition of client includes voluntary admissions, guardian admissions or court-ordered admission to developmentally disabled program); § 43-1-3(1) (definition of evaluation facility includes state-funded and state-operated facilities); § 43-1-4 (legal…”
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.