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 case concerns a petitioner who alleged that her doctor committed medical malpractice by failing to recognize, diagnose, and treat transference and countertransference phenomena during her medical and psychiatric treatment. The petitioner claimed that the doctor engaged in inappropriate conduct, including sexual acts, and failed to refer her to appropriate mental health professionals despite diagnosing her with a life-threatening eating disorder (paras 3-5, 8).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 24, 1997: The court issued a partial writ of mandamus, allowing the Director of the New Mexico Medical Review Commission to redact issues of intentional sexual misconduct from the petitioner’s application and submit only the remaining issues of medical negligence to a review panel (para 7).
- District Court, February 24, 1998: The court denied the petitioner’s motion for an order to show cause, which sought to hold the Director in contempt for redacting more than what the November 24, 1997, order allowed (para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the Director of the New Mexico Medical Review Commission lacked discretion under the Medical Malpractice Act to redact portions of her application and that the redactions improperly excluded her claims of the doctor’s negligence in diagnosing and treating transference and countertransference (paras 9, 19).
- Respondents-Appellees: Contended that the Director had implicit discretion to redact portions of the application and that the petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed because the denial of a motion for an order to show cause is not appealable (paras 10-11, 15).
Legal Issues
- Does the Director of the New Mexico Medical Review Commission have discretion under the Medical Malpractice Act to redact portions of an applicant’s claims and factual allegations before submitting the application to a review panel?
- Was the denial of the petitioner’s motion for an order to show cause appealable?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the Director does not have discretion under the Medical Malpractice Act to redact portions of an applicant’s application. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to submit the petitioner’s complete application to a review panel (paras 1, 24).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Alarid and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The court found that the Medical Malpractice Act does not grant the Director discretion to redact portions of an application. The Act explicitly assigns the review of all malpractice claims to the panels, not the Director. The Director’s role is limited to ministerial duties, such as transmitting applications and chairing the panel, with no authority to screen or eliminate claims (paras 20-22).
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the denial of the motion for an order to show cause was not appealable. It held that the petitioner was an aggrieved party under the New Mexico Constitution and statutory provisions, as the denial effectively precluded her from presenting her claims to a review panel (paras 12-14).
The court also declined to apply the law of the case doctrine to uphold the district court’s earlier ruling that the Director had implicit discretion. It reasoned that the doctrine is discretionary and should not perpetuate a manifestly erroneous interpretation of the law (paras 16-18).
The court concluded that the Director’s redactions usurped the panel’s authority and undermined the Act’s purpose of assisting applicants in pursuing malpractice claims. It emphasized that the Director must submit the petitioner’s complete application to the panel for review (paras 22-24).