N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 61 / Article 6
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16 (2026)

Reporting of settlements and judgments, professional

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
review actions and acceptance of surrendered license; immunity
from civil damages; penalty.
    A. All entities that make payments under a policy of insurance, self-insurance or
otherwise in settlement or satisfaction of a judgment in a medical malpractice action or
claim, hospitals, health care entities and professional review bodies shall report to the
board all payments relating to malpractice actions or claims arising in New Mexico that
involve a licensee and that are paid as a direct result of the licensee’s care, all
appropriate professional review actions of licensees and the acceptance or surrender of
clinical privileges by a licensee while under investigation or in lieu of an investigation.
For the purposes of this section, the meaning of these terms shall be as contained in
Section 431 of the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 USCA
Section 11151.

   B. The hospitals required to report under this section, health care entities or
professional review bodies that provide such information in good faith shall not be
subject to suit for civil damages as a result of providing the information.
   C. A hospital, health care entity or professional review body failing to comply with
the reporting requirements provided in this section shall be subject to civil penalty not to
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

History: 1978 Comp., § 61-6-16, enacted by Laws 1989, ch. 269, § 12; 2003, ch. 19, §
16; 2008, ch. 74, § 2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Recompilations. — Laws 1989, ch. 269, § 13 recompiled former 61-6-16 NMSA 1978,
relating to exceptions from this article, as 61-6-17 NMSA 1978, effective July 1, 1989.

The 2008 amendment, effective May 14, 2008, in Subsection A, required reports to the
board of payments that involve a licensee.

The 2003 amendment, effective June 20, 2003, inserted "federal" following "Section
431 of the" in Subsection A; in Subsection B, substituted "The" for "No" at the
beginning, inserted "not" following "good faith shall", substituted "of providing the
information" for "thereof" at the end; and substituted "ten thousand dollars ($10,000)" for
"two thousand dollars ($2,000)" in Subsection C.

Law reviews. — For case note, "Workers' Compensation Law: A Clinical Psychologist
Is Qualified to Give Expert Medical Testimony Regarding Causation: Madrid v.
University of California, d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 637
(1988).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1987 · leading case: New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 22× “Pamp.1986). Subsection 61-6-16(G) governs only the exception of physician’s assistants, and we believe that when the Legislature used the term “qualified person” in the final clause of that subsection, it meant a physician’s assistant who acts in accordance with the criteria of…”
Fierro v. Stanley's Hardware, 722 P.2d 652 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 12× “This section specifies that the practice of medicine is, among other things, the administration of any drug or medicine (subsection C), or the diagnosis, correction and treatment of any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity, defect or abnormal physical or…”
Medina v. Original Hamburger Stand, 728 P.2d 488 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “No doubt the trial court in the case before us saw no reason to make any distinction between the practice of osteopathy and the practice of psychology since both are excluded from the provisions of the act governing medicine and surgery under Section 61-6-16(F)(l) and (6).”
Katz v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Servs., 624 P.2d 39 (N.M. 1981). · cites it 2× “However, Section 61-6-16, N.M.S.A.1978, expressly excludes chiropractic practices from the application of Sections 61-6-1 through 61-6-18, N.”
Vallejos v. KNC, Inc.-A Rogers Co., 735 P.2d 530 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 4× “” It held that psychologists, who under NMSA 1978, Subsection 61-6-16(F) (Repl.Pamp. 1986), are expressly excepted from compliance with the licensing statutes pertaining to the practice of medicine, cannot render expert medical testimony on causation.”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(C): 1 case
New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987). “Pamp.1986). Subsection 61-6-16(G) governs only the exception of physician’s assistants, and we believe that when the Legislature used the term “qualified person” in the final clause of that subsection, it meant a physician’s assistant who acts in accordance with the criteria of…”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(F): 2 cases
Medina v. Original Hamburger Stand, 728 P.2d 488 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “No doubt the trial court in the case before us saw no reason to make any distinction between the practice of osteopathy and the practice of psychology since both are excluded from the provisions of the act governing medicine and surgery under Section 61-6-16(F)(l) and (6).”
Vallejos v. KNC, Inc.-A Rogers Co., 735 P.2d 530 (N.M. 1987). “” It held that psychologists, who under NMSA 1978, Subsection 61-6-16(F) (Repl.Pamp. 1986), are expressly excepted from compliance with the licensing statutes pertaining to the practice of medicine, cannot render expert medical testimony on causation.”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(F)(6): 1 case
Medina v. Original Hamburger Stand, 728 P.2d 488 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “No doubt the trial court in the case before us saw no reason to make any distinction between the practice of osteopathy and the practice of psychology since both are excluded from the provisions of the act governing medicine and surgery under Section 61-6-16(F)(l) and (6).”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(F)(l): 1 case
Medina v. Original Hamburger Stand, 728 P.2d 488 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “No doubt the trial court in the case before us saw no reason to make any distinction between the practice of osteopathy and the practice of psychology since both are excluded from the provisions of the act governing medicine and surgery under Section 61-6-16(F)(l) and (6).”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(G): 1 case
New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987). “Pamp.1986). Subsection 61-6-16(G) governs only the exception of physician’s assistants, and we believe that when the Legislature used the term “qualified person” in the final clause of that subsection, it meant a physician’s assistant who acts in accordance with the criteria of…”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(G)(3): 1 case
New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987). “Pamp.1986). Subsection 61-6-16(G) governs only the exception of physician’s assistants, and we believe that when the Legislature used the term “qualified person” in the final clause of that subsection, it meant a physician’s assistant who acts in accordance with the criteria of…”
N.M. Stat. § 61-6-16(G)(l): 1 case
New Mexico Pharm. Ass'n v. State, 738 P.2d 1318 (N.M. 1987). “Pamp.1986). Subsection 61-6-16(G) governs only the exception of physician’s assistants, and we believe that when the Legislature used the term “qualified person” in the final clause of that subsection, it meant a physician’s assistant who acts in accordance with the criteria of…”
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.