 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rupp v. Hurley12/10/2001
Plaintiff's claims were filed before the statute of limitations expired.
We also find compelling the absence of prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff did not serve Defendants-and Defendants did not have to respond to Plaintiff's claims-until after the MRC rendered its decision. For the first four years of active litigation, Defendants did nothing to put forth their theory that the initial complaint was void, and they actually admitted in their answer to the first amended complaint that Plaintiff had complied with the MMA. Defendants are in no worse position now than they would have been if Plaintiff had delayed filing until after the MRC had acted.
Permitting Plaintiff's lawsuit to proceed is not inconsistent with the purposes of the MMA and the MRC screening process. The stated purpose of the Medical MMA is to "promote the health and welfare of the people of New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance for health care providers in New Mexico." NMSA 1978, ยง 41-5-2 (1976). The two original purposes of the MRC screening process were:
On the one hand, to prevent where possible the filing in Court of actions against physicians and their employees for professional malpractice in situations where the facts do not permit at least a reasonable inference thereof; and, on the other hand, to make possible the fair and equitable disposition of such claims against physicians as are, or reasonably may be, well founded [by providing an expert witness]. Ruth L. Kovnat, Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico, 7 N.M.L.R. 5, 35 (1976-77) (Appendix I - Joint Medical-Legal Plan for Screening Medical Negligence Cases).
Permitting Plaintiff's lawsuit does not violate either purpose. It is unlikely that waiting for the MRC decision would have deterred Plaintiff from filing her complaint. It is equally obvious that the district court's eventual strict enforcement of Section 41-5-15 did not in any way streamline the disposition of Plaintiff's claims, largely because Defendants did not press the issue until after four long years of zealous litigation.
We emphasize that the necessity for an MRC determination prior to the filing of a medical malpractice claim remains a mandatory procedural threshold that must be crossed in the ordinary case. However, failure to comply with this requirement should not result in evisceration of the plaintiff's cause of action; other less drastic remedies are available. For example, if an early complaint is brought to the attention of the district court prior to the MRC decision, the district court should normally dismiss the complaint without prejudice. In addition, if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a good faith basis for filing the complaint early, it would be appropriate for the district court to consider Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
We reverse summary judgment in favor of Defendants and remand for reinstatement of Plaintiff's claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Chief Judge
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|