Grantland v. Lea Regional Hosp., Inc., No. 19230
| Docket Nº | No. 19230 |
| Citation | 796 P.2d 599, 110 N.M. 378, 1990 NMSC 76 |
| Case Date | August 23, 1990 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Page 599
v.
LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC., Respondent.
Gary C. Mitchell, Ruidoso, for petitioners.
Atwood, Malone, Mann & Turner, Rod M. Schumacher, Roswell, for respondent.
WILSON, Justice.
Defendant-respondent Lea Regional Hospital, Inc. (Regional) filed a motion in district court to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint of plaintiffs-petitioners James R. and Betty Grantland (Grantlands) on the basis that the statute of limitations barred their recovery. When the district court denied Regional's motion, Regional filed an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court. We granted certiorari and now reverse the court of appeals.
Pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 41-5-1 to -28 (Repl.Pamp.1989) (the Act), on May 14, 1986, Grantlands filed an application with the New Mexico medical review commission (the commission) requesting consideration of their claim of medical malpractice against Regional. Grantlands alleged that Regional committed medical malpractice in the care and treatment of James R. Grantland from mid-June through July 1983. In September 1986, Grantlands made further inquiry of the commission as to Regional's
Page 600
[110 N.M. 379] status as a qualified health care provider. On October 8, 1986, the commission advised Grantlands that Regional had not contributed to the patient's compensation fund and therefore was not a qualified health care provider under the Medical Malpractice Act.In the meantime, on September 12, 1986, Grantlands filed a medical malpractice complaint against Regional in district court. The district court found that Grantlands did not know or have reason to know that Regional was not a qualified health care provider for the purposes of the Act, and even though the Grantlands' complaint was filed in district court more than three years after the date of the alleged malpractice, it was not barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of law.
The single issue in this case is whether the filing of a medical malpractice application with the New Mexico medical review commission tolls the statute of limitations as to nonqualified health care providers.
In 1976, the New Mexico legislature created a medical review commission to review all medical malpractice claims against "health care providers covered by the Medical Malpractice Act." Sec. 41-5-14(A). See generally Kovnat, Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico, 7 N.M.L.Rev. 5 (1976-77). The intent of the Act is to prevent the filing of nonmeritorious malpractice lawsuits. Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482 (1985). To facilitate this purpose, the Act provides that prior to filing a complaint in any court against a "qualifying health care provider," the claimant must submit an application to the medical review commission. Sec. 41-5-15(A). Upon receipt of an application a panel is selected, Sec. 41-5-17, and after consideration of all relevant material, the panel decides only two questions, namely, "(1) whether there is substantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute malpractice; and (2) whether there is a reasonable medical probability that the patient was injured thereby." Sec. 41-5-20. Submission of a case for the consideration of the panel tolls the statute of limitations period until thirty days after the panel's final decision is entered in the permanent files of the commission and a copy is served upon the claimant and his attorney by certified mail. Sec. 41-5-22.
In its opinion the court of appeals relies upon Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482 (1985). A comprehensive reading of this case convinces us that claimants who make a good-faith attempt to comply with the Medical Malpractice Act should not be deprived of their day in court by placing form above substance. As stated in Zouhar:
We see no justice in strictly applying the Act now to void the complaint filed and thus circumvent the tolling provision of the Act that would have applied to save [claimant's] cause of action if the trial court's ruling and the time consumed in appellate proceedings had not intervened. Such "Catch-22's" are procedural anomalies that do not deserve perpetuation.
102 N.M. at 485, 697 P.2d at 485.
Similarly, in Jiron v. Mahlab, 99 N.M. 425, 659 P.2d 311 (1983) we allowed the claimants to circumvent Section 41-5-15(A) and file their medical malpractice complaint in district court before applying for the commission's review in order to protect their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahn v. Berryman, S-1-SC-35302
...served upon the claimant and his attorney by certified mail." Section 41-5-22; see also Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp. , 1990-NMSC-076, ¶ 9, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599 (holding that the statute of repose is tolled regardless of the outcome of the case). The Garcias filed their claim against t......
-
Morris v. Brandenburg, S–1–SC–35478
...v. Zouhar , 1985–NMSC–021, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482, overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc. , 1990–NMSC–076, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.{46} In recent years, New Mexico courts have invoked Article II, Section 4 as a prism through which we view due process and equ......
-
Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS, 28,348.
...P.2d 305; Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N.M. 482, 486, 697 P.2d 482, 486 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 110 N.M. 378, 380, 796 P.2d 599, 601 (1990); Jiron v. Mahlab, 99 N.M. 425, 426, 659 P.2d 311, 312 (1983). In addition, and of utmost importance in this c......
-
Cummings v. X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, P.C., X-RAY
...to go forward with a claim that might otherwise be lost. Two cases concerned such circumstances: Grantland v. Lea Regional Hospital, Inc., 110 N.M. 378, 380, 796 P.2d 599, 601 (1990) (concluding that Section 41-5-22, which tolls the limitations period upon submission of a case to the commis......
-
Cahn v. Berryman, NO. S-1-SC-35302
...served upon the claimant and his attorney by certified mail." Section 41-5-22; see also Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp. , 1990-NMSC-076, ¶ 9, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599 (holding that the statute of repose is tolled regardless of the outcome of the case). The Garcias filed their claim against t......
-
Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS, No. 28,348.
...P.2d 305; Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N.M. 482, 486, 697 P.2d 482, 486 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 110 N.M. 378, 380, 796 P.2d 599, 601 (1990); Jiron v. Mahlab, 99 N.M. 425, 426, 659 P.2d 311, 312 (1983). In addition, and of utmost importance in this c......
-
Morris v. Brandenburg, NO. S–1–SC–35478
...v. Zouhar , 1985–NMSC–021, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482, overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc. , 1990–NMSC–076, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.{46} In recent years, New Mexico courts have invoked Article II, Section 4 as a prism through which we view due process and equ......
-
Morris v. Brandenburg, NO. S-1-SC-35478
...Zouhar, 1985-NMSC-021, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482, overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 1990-NMSC-076,Page 49 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.{46} In recent years, New Mexico courts have invoked Article II, Section 4 as a prism through which we view due process and e......