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, Kimberly Montaño, filed a claim against her insurer, Lovelace Insurance Company, alleging "negligent referral" following complications from a bariatric surgery. The insurer had informed Montaño that her insurance would only cover the surgery if performed by Dr. Eldo Frezza, an in-network physician. Years after the surgery, Montaño discovered that the procedure had left a "tangled network of sutures" in her body, leading to her claim against Lovelace (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment to Defendant Lovelace Insurance Company, denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that expert testimony was not required to prove Lovelace breached the duty of care or to establish a factual issue as to breach. Contended that Lovelace had a nondelegable duty and failed to ensure that Dr. Frezza was competent, lacked malpractice insurance, and had a prior malpractice settlement (paras 3, 5).
• Defendant: Maintained that the Plaintiff’s issues on appeal were not properly before the Court and that an expert was required under these circumstances to establish the standard of care. Argued that credentialing was delegated to Texas Tech Physicians Associates (TTPA), and the jury should consider what was reasonable for Lovelace to do given this delegation (paras 3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for a reasonable insurer and breach of that standard (para 3).
• Whether the district court properly denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider based on the argument of a nondelegable duty (para 10).
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (para 13).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, including the grant of summary judgment to Lovelace, the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (para 14).

Reasons

• Per WRAY, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and BOGARDUS, J., concurring):
  The Court agreed with Lovelace that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care under the circumstances, citing the precedent set in Grassie v. Roswell Hospital Corp. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s claims and the multiple potential sources for Lovelace’s duty did not negate the need for expert testimony to establish the standard of care for a reasonable insurer (paras 4-5, 9).
  Regarding the motion to reconsider, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. It reasoned that even if a nondelegable duty was assumed, an expert was necessary to identify the precautions Lovelace should have taken to avoid the risks of bariatric surgery and whether the absence of those precautions caused the Plaintiff’s injuries (para 12).
  On the denial of the motion to compel discovery, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the district court. It noted that the additional discovery sought by the Plaintiff would not have exempted her claim from the requirement for expert testimony as established in Grassie (para 13).