N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-25
H. Upon receipt of one of the proofs of authenticity listed in this subsection, reflecting a judgment for damages rendered pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, the superintendent shall issue or have issued warrants in accordance with the payment schedule constructed by the court and made a part of its final judgment. The only claim against the fund shall be a voucher or other appropriate request by the superintendent after the superintendent receives:
History: 1978 Comp., § 41-5-25, enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 9; 1997, ch. 109, § 1; 2021, ch. 16, § 13; 2026, ch. 44, § 6.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1990, ch. 111, § 2 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws 1990, ch. 111, § 1, relating to patient's compensation fund, and enacted a new 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, effective July 1, 1991.
Laws 1990, ch. 111, § 3 repealed Laws 1989, ch. 324, § 43 which enacted 41-5-25 NMSA 1978 to become effective on July 1, 1990.
Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 9 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 8, and enacted a new 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, effective July 1, 1992.
Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 10 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 9, and enacted a new 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, effective July 1, 1993.
Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 7 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 8, and as enacted by Laws 1991, ch. 264, § 10, and enacted a new section, effective April 1, 1992.
Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 8 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 7, and enacted a new section, effective April 1, 1993.
Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 9 repealed former 41-5-25 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 33, § 8, and enacted a new section, effective April 1, 1994.
The 2026 amendment, effective May 20, 2026, clarified how the patient compensation fund surcharges are to be calculated; in Subsection D, after "The surcharge" deleted "shall be determined by the superintendent with the advice of the advisory board and based on the annual independent actuarial study of the fund. The surcharges for health care providers, including hospitals and outpatient health care facilities whose qualifications for the fund end on January 1, 2027, shall be based on sound actuarial principles, using data obtained from New Mexico claims and loss experience" and added the remainder of the subsection.
Applicability. — Laws 2026, ch. 44, § 8 provided that the provisions of Laws 2026, ch. 44 apply to all claims for medical malpractice that arise on or after May 20, 2026.
Severability. — Laws 2026, ch. 44, § 7 provided that if a provision of Laws 2026, ch. 44 or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of Laws 2026, ch. 44 that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of Laws 2026, ch. 44 are severable.
The 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, provided the means of funding the patient's compensation fund, required the superintendent of insurance to contract for the administration and operation of the fund with a qualified, licensed third-party administrator, required the third-party administrator to provide an annual audit of the fund to the superintendent of insurance, revised the procedures for determining the annual surcharge on qualifying New Mexico health care providers, provided that annual surcharges shall be set by October 31 of each year for the next calendar year, and provided that, after January 1, 2022, the superintendent of insurance must approve any settlement of a claim for more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars, up from two hundred thousand dollars prior to January 1, 2022; in the section heading, after "Patient's compensation fund", added "third-party administrator; actuarial studies; surcharges; claims; proration; proofs of authenticity"; in Subsection A, after "'patient's compensation fund'", deleted "to be collected and received by the superintendent for exclusive use for the purpose stated in the Medical Malpractice Act" and added "is created as a nonreverting fund in the state treasury. The fund consists of money from surcharges, income from investment of the fund and any other money deposited to the credit of the fund", after "invested", deleted "and reinvested by the superintendent with the prior approval of the state board of finance" and added "by the state investment office", and after "Medical Malpractice Act", deleted "The superintendent shall have the authority to use fund money to purchase insurance for the fund and its obligations" and added the remainder of the subsection; added a new Subsection B and redesignated former Subsection B as Subsection D; in Subsection C, after "fund", added "and the third-party administrator"; in Subsection D, after "The surcharge shall be determined by the superintendent", deleted "based upon sound actuarial principles, using data obtained from New Mexico experience if available" and added the remainder of the subsection; deleted former Subsection E; added a new Subsection F and redesignated former Subsections F and G as Subsections G and H, respectively; in Subsection H, Paragraphs H(1) through H(3), added "until January 1, 2022, and deleted former Subsection H, which related to the superintendent contracting for an independent actuarial study of the patient's compensation fund; and added Subsection I.
The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, added the third sentence in Subsection A.
District court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing declaratory judgment and upholding administrative decision. — Where Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory judgment asking the district court to construe NMSA 1978, § 41-5-25 of the Medical Malpractice Act (Act) to require that the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) accept a late-tendered surcharge and recognize Plaintiffs’ insured as a qualified health care provider during a six-month period in 2017, and where the request for declaratory judgment was combined with an appeal from a decision by the OSI which encompassed the same issues, and where the district court first dismissed the declaratory judgment claim with prejudice, and then upheld OSI’s decision on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim, because the purpose of Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment was to obtain de novo review of the Act, without deference to the OSI’s interpretation and implementation of the Act. This approach circumvented the typical administrative process, a tactic which New Mexico courts have looked at with disfavor. Beecher Carlson Ins. Serv. v. Catechis, 2023-NMCA-038.
The superintendent of insurance has the authority to object to the terms in a settlement based on the Medical Malpractice Act (decided prior to 2021 amendment to the Medical Malpractice Act). — Where plaintiff and defendant settled a medical malpractice case, but where the superintendent of insurance declined to disburse the agreed amount from the patient's compensation fund because, in their view, the payment for lump sum future medical expenses, a term of the settlement, violated the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), 41-5-1 NMSA 1978 to 41-5-29 NMSA 1978, the superintended of insurance had the authority to object to the terms in the settlement based on the MMA, because the plain language of the MMA requires the superintendent to hold available monies in trust and protect the patient's compensation fund and authorizes only the superintendent to expend funds from the patient's compensation fund and only for the purposes of and to the extent provided in the MMA. Murphy v. Pediatrix Cardiology of N.M., P.C., 2026-NMCA-001, cert. granted.
Law reviews. — For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77).