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

• The plaintiff, Ruth E. Dills, filed a lawsuit against the New Mexico Heart Institute, P.A., alleging malpractice claims related to the conduct of Dr. Blake prior to March 7, 2009. The basis of the claims was under the Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of repose, which limits the time for filing malpractice claims to within three years after the act of malpractice occurred.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, March 5, 2014: Judgment in favor of New Mexico Heart Institute, P.A., dismissing the plaintiff's claims based on the statute of repose for medical malpractice actions.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the order granting summary judgment was not final for purposes of appeal because the resolution of issues at trial against other defendants were intertwined with the claims against the New Mexico Heart Institute, P.A.
• Defendant: Supported the court's proposed disposition to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal, arguing that the summary judgment was final and appealable when it was filed, and the plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely.

Legal Issues

• Whether the order granting summary judgment for claims arising from conduct prior to March 7, 2009, was a final and appealable order.
• Whether the plaintiff's appeal of the grant of summary judgment was timely filed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with respect to Issue I, concerning the timeliness of the appeal against the order granting summary judgment.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy and Michael D. Bustamante concurring, the court found that the order granting summary judgment was final and appealable on the date it was filed in the district court, November 27, 2013. The plaintiff's notice of appeal, filed on April 1, 2014, was therefore untimely. The court distinguished this case from Mikeska, where the order granting summary judgment was not considered final due to intertwined issues with remaining claims against other defendants. Here, the summary judgment was based on the Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of repose, which does not implicate the merits of the case with respect to vicarious liability arising from another doctor's alleged negligence. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not move the district court to expressly state that the order was not final for purposes of appeal, nor did she establish that a recognized exception to excuse the untimely filing applied (paras 1-6).