AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• After an ultrasound revealed a spot on her left kidney, the plaintiff underwent surgery to remove the growth, which was then sent to the defendant for evaluation. The defendant diagnosed the tissue as cancerous, leading to the removal of the plaintiff's entire left kidney. Later, the plaintiff was informed that the tissue was actually benign (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Jerald A. Valentine, District Judge: Granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Margarita Topalovski, M.D. (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the initial application to the New Mexico Medical Review Commission (MRC) against another doctor tolled the statute of limitations for adding a claim against Dr. Topalovski, and that the claim should be tolled based on a discovery-based accrual date (para 5).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the three-year statute of repose set forth in the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), arguing that the plaintiff's application was filed outside the statutory period (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff's initial application to the MRC against another doctor tolled the statute of limitations for the purpose of adding a claim against Dr. Topalovski when the amended application was filed more than three years after the alleged malpractice (para 5).
• Whether the claim against Dr. Topalovski should have been tolled based on a discovery-based accrual date (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of Dr. Topalovski (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The court concluded that filing an application with the MRC regarding one provider does not toll the limitations period for another provider not named in the original application after the statutory period to file a cause of action has passed. The court held that the MMA's statute of repose requires an action for medical negligence to be filed within three years after the malpractice occurred, and this period cannot be extended by amending an application to include a previously unnamed health care provider after the limitations period has expired. The court also determined that the discovery rule does not apply under the circumstances of this case, as the statute of repose is occurrence-based, not discovery-based. The court found no evidence of fraud that would toll the statute of limitations and noted that the defendant did not waive her statute of repose defense by not raising it in her response to the MRC application or at the hearing (paras 6-20).