This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The petitioner underwent surgery in 1984 at a hospital owned by the respondent. A surgical sponge was negligently left in her abdomen, causing years of discomfort and medical issues. The sponge was discovered and removed in 1989. The petitioner alleged medical negligence and fraudulent concealment against the surgeons, nurses, and radiologist involved in her care, as well as the hospital under the theory of respondeat superior.
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent hospital and one surgeon, finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations. The claim against another surgeon was not dismissed due to allegations of fraudulent concealment.
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the trial court's decision in an unpublished opinion, holding that the statute of limitations began at the time of the negligent act.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that the statute of limitations under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) applies only to qualified health care providers and that the general personal injury statute of limitations should apply to nonqualified providers like the respondent. The petitioner also contended that the cause of action should accrue when the injury is discovered, not at the time of the negligent act.
- Respondent: Asserted that the MMA's statute of limitations applies to all health care providers, whether qualified or not, and that the cause of action accrues at the time of the negligent act. The respondent argued that the legislature intended the statute of limitations to apply broadly, as evidenced by the omission of the word "qualified" in the relevant provision.
Legal Issues
- Does the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations apply to nonqualified health care providers?
- When does a cause of action for medical malpractice against a nonqualified health care provider accrue: at the time of the negligent act or when the injury is discovered?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Ransom C.J. and Montgomery J. concurring):
Statutory Interpretation: The court held that the MMA's statute of limitations is a "benefit" of the Act and applies only to qualified health care providers. Nonqualified providers, like the respondent, are subject to the general personal injury statute of limitations.
Accrual of Cause of Action: The court overruled prior case law, including Roybal v. White, and adopted the discovery rule for nonqualified providers. A cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause, rather than at the time of the negligent act.
Policy Considerations: The court emphasized fairness to plaintiffs, noting that the discovery rule prevents punishing "blameless ignorance" and aligns with the majority rule in other jurisdictions. It also protects the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship.
Remand: The court instructed the trial court to determine whether the petitioner knew or should have known of the injury and its cause within the applicable limitations period.