This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A surgeon employed by a state hospital was named in a tort claims notice related to alleged medical malpractice. The state’s Risk Management Division (RMD) refused to provide him with the tort claims notice, appoint independent defense counsel, or disclose investigation records. The surgeon sought a writ of mandamus to compel RMD to fulfill its statutory duties under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (TCA) to provide a defense and disclose relevant records (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, June 21, 2005: Issued a writ of mandamus requiring RMD to appoint defense counsel and disclose investigation records to the surgeon. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the surgeon (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (RMD and its Acting Director): Argued that the TCA does not authorize attorney fees for mandamus actions and that the award was contrary to the American rule, which prohibits fee-shifting absent statutory or contractual authority. They also contended that the surgeon’s cost application lacked specificity (paras 9-11, 37-39).
- Appellee (Surgeon): Asserted that the TCA’s duty to defend public employees implicitly supports attorney fees and that public policy justifies an exception to the American rule. He also argued that RMD acted in bad faith by withholding a defense and relevant records (paras 10, 17, 22-23).
Legal Issues
- Does the New Mexico Tort Claims Act authorize the award of attorney fees for mandamus actions?
- Should an exception to the American rule be recognized based on public policy?
- Did RMD act in bad faith, warranting attorney fees as a sanction?
- Was the award of costs proper under procedural rules?
Disposition
- The award of attorney fees was reversed.
- The issue of costs was remanded for further proceedings, requiring an itemized cost bill (paras 40-41).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Attorney Fees under the TCA: The court held that the TCA does not authorize attorney fees for mandamus actions. The statute’s duty to defend applies to tort actions, not to mandamus proceedings. The mandamus statute also does not include attorney fees as recoverable costs (paras 10-11).
Public Policy Exception: The court declined to create a new exception to the American rule, emphasizing that exceptions must be narrow and limited. Allowing fees in this case would undermine judicial efficiency and discourage good-faith defenses by public entities (paras 17-21).
Bad Faith Argument: The court found no evidence of bad faith by RMD. The district court made no findings of bad faith, and the record showed that RMD’s actions were based on legal uncertainty rather than malice or improper motives (paras 22-34).
Costs: The court remanded the issue of costs, noting that the surgeon’s application lacked the specificity required by procedural rules. An itemized cost bill must be submitted for proper determination (paras 36-39).