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, representing himself, filed a medical malpractice complaint against the Defendant, a healthcare provider. The complaint alleged malpractice occurring in 2010 up to the Plaintiff's mother's death in January 2011. The Plaintiff had previously filed a complaint with the Medical Review Commission (MRC) on behalf of his mother's estate but was found to lack standing in that action.

Procedural History

• Dolvin v. Ruekhaus, 34,798 memo op. (N.M. Ct. App. January 12, 2017) (nonprecedential): The Court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the MRC action.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court improperly dismissed his medical malpractice complaint as untimely, claimed the Court's order allowing a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion was incorrect, alleged unethical behavior by opposing counsel, claimed his due process rights were violated, and argued that the Medical Malpractice Act's limitations period is unconstitutional.
• Defendant: Noted that Plaintiff did not raise the remand option with the district court and argued that the district court had already ruled on Rule 1-060(B) arguments made by the Plaintiff.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly dismissed the Plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint as untimely under the applicable statute of repose.
• Whether the Court's March 30, 2022, order permitting the Plaintiff to bring a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion was correct.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claims of unethical behavior by opposing counsel are appropriate for this Court.
• Whether the Plaintiff's due process rights were violated.
• Whether the Medical Malpractice Act's limitations period is unconstitutional.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint.

Reasons

• Per Henderson, J., with Duffy, J., and Wray, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the Plaintiff's complaint was filed well beyond the three-year statute of repose for medical malpractice claims, with no sufficient tolling period due to the MRC action to extend the filing deadline (paras 2-4).
  The Court determined that its previous order allowing the Plaintiff to bring a Rule 1-060(B) motion was a good faith effort to clarify any arguments the Plaintiff may have had, but noted that the district court had already addressed these arguments and found no grounds for setting aside the judgment (para 5).
  The Court declined to address the Plaintiff's claims of unethical behavior by opposing counsel, stating that it is not the proper forum for such complaints without a showing of prejudice (para 6).
  The Court reiterated that the Plaintiff is not permitted to endlessly bring motions to reconsider and has not shown that such motions would change the outcome regarding the limitations period issue (para 7).
  The Court held that the Medical Malpractice Act's limitations period is constitutional, citing precedent from the New Mexico Supreme Court, and noted that the Plaintiff's lack of standing in the initial MRC action and failure to file a timely complaint in district court were already addressed (para 8).