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

• Sharon Hoyt sought to amend her husband's death certificate, dissatisfied with its contents, including the time and cause of death and the statement that no autopsy had been performed. After unsuccessful attempts to have the hospital, which had performed an autopsy, amend the certificate, Hoyt requested the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI) to make the amendments. OMI declined, leading Hoyt to file a petition for a writ of mandamus against OMI and the Chief Medical Investigator, Ross Zumwalt, to compel them to file a corrected death certificate (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Sharon Hoyt): Argued that OMI's interest in accuracy in recording death certificates created a mandatory duty to amend faulty certificates, even if OMI did not attend the death or perform the autopsy (para 4).
• Defendants-Appellants (OMI and Ross Zumwalt): Contended that they had no jurisdiction over Hoyt’s husband’s death since the hospital attended the death and performed the autopsy, had no legal authority or duty to amend the death certificate, were improper parties for a writ of mandamus, and that the petition failed to state a claim for which mandamus should be granted (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Office of the Medical Investigator and Ross Zumwalt had a mandatory duty to amend a death certificate based on their interest in the accuracy of death certificates, despite not attending the death or performing the autopsy (paras 4-5).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to OMI's failure to file a timely notice of appeal, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the case (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico, per Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, with Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring and Judge Timothy L. Garcia dissenting, found that the writ issued by the district court was a final peremptory writ of mandamus at the time it was entered. The court held that OMI's attempt to file a second answer to the peremptory writ instead of a notice of appeal was improper. The court concluded that OMI's failure to file a timely notice of appeal after the district court issued its writ rendered the appeal untimely and deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court did not take a position on the merits of the writ issued by the district court due to the jurisdictional issue (paras 1-3, 11-36).