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 plaintiffs filed a complaint for wrongful death, negligence, and medical malpractice against Presbyterian Healthcare Services (PHS) following Michael Thoemke's death at Presbyterian Hospital. The complaint included allegations concerning Dr. Richard Gerety’s conduct, who consulted on Michael’s case but was not named as a defendant. PHS filed a third-party complaint for equitable indemnification against Dr. Gerety and his employer, New Mexico Heart Institute (NMHI), after obtaining review and decision by the Medical Review Commission as required by the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The plaintiffs moved to stay the third-party complaint and for a protective order from discovery, which the district court granted. Subsequently, the plaintiffs settled their claims against PHS, and as part of the settlement, PHS assigned its indemnification claim to one of the plaintiffs, who then moved to lift the stay and take over as third-party plaintiff on that claim (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County: Granted plaintiffs' motions to stay the third-party complaint and for a protective order from discovery. Later, granted motion to lift the stay following the settlement between plaintiffs and PHS, allowing the assigned indemnification claim to proceed (paras 5-7, 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they had no interest in PHS's indemnification claim against the third-party defendants, that the indemnification claim had not accrued, and that they should not be involved in a dispute not concerning them (para 5).
• PHS: Filed a third-party complaint for equitable indemnification against Dr. Gerety and NMHI, stating entitlement to indemnification if Dr. Gerety was found negligent and PHS vicariously liable (para 4).
• Dr. Gerety and NMHI (Appellants): Argued that the indemnification claim is a "malpractice claim" under the MMA and thus covered by all regulatory aspects of the MMA, including the prohibition against assignment of such claims. They also contended that allowing the assignment and prosecution of the indemnification claim would violate public policy against double recovery and the MMA's presentation requirement and statute of repose (paras 8-9, 11-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the hospital’s assignment of its indemnification claim to one of the plaintiffs is barred by the MMA’s prohibition against assignment of a patient’s claim for compensation under the MMA or the common law (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of Appellants' motion to dismiss the indemnification action and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action with prejudice (para 57).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Vanzi, concluded that the MMA’s requirements and restrictions apply to all "malpractice claims" covered by the MMA, including the indemnification claim at issue. The court reasoned that the Legislature intended the MMA to cover all causes of action arising in New Mexico based on acts of malpractice, regardless of the claim's holder at any given time. The court found no basis for treating indemnification claims differently under the MMA and emphasized the importance of considering the statute as a whole, including its purposes and consequences. The court also addressed concerns about potential consequences of allowing assignment of indemnification claims, such as the possibility of "claim laundering" and recovery beyond 100% of damages, which would be contrary to the MMA's purposes. The dissenting opinion, provided by Judge Attrep, argued for a distinction between "patient's claims" and "malpractice claims" within the MMA, suggesting that the non-assignability provision should not apply to all malpractice claims (paras 15-44, 58-70).