IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

1 Opinion Number: _____________ 2 Filing Date : November 28, 2018 3
NO. A

- 1

- CA

- 35807 4
NICHOLAS T. LEGER as PERSONAL 5 REPRESENTATIVE for the ESTATE OF 6 MICHAEL THOEMKE and DANIEL 7 THOEMKE , individually , 8
Plaintiff s , 9

v. 10 NICHOLAS T. LEGER as assignee 11 OF PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE 12 SERVICES, and JOHN OR JANE DOES 13 1

- 5 , 14
Defendant s/Third

- Party Plaintiffs

- Appellees, 15

v. 16 RICHARD GERETY, M.D., and 17 NEW MEXICO HEART INSTITUTE, 18
Third

- Party Defendants

- Appellants. 19
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 20 Gerald E. Baca , District Judge 21 The Vargas Law Firm, LLC 22 Ray M

. Vargas, II 23 Albuquerque, NM 24Carter & Valle Law Firm

1 Richard J. Valle 2 Criostoir O’Cleireachain 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Appellee s 5
Lorenz Law 6 Alice T. Lorenz 7 Albuquerque, NM 8 Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, P.A. 9 Lee M. Rogers 10 Carla Neusch Williams 11 Roswell, NM 12
for Appellant s 13OPINION

1
VANZI , Chief Judge. 2

{ 1 } This interlocutory appeal presents a question of first impression concerning 3 assignment of claims for compensation covered by the Medical Malpractice Act 4 ( the MMA or the Act) , NMSA 1978, §§ 41

- 5

- 1 to

- 29 (1976, as amended through 5 2015) . In the litigation below, plaintiffs sued a hospital on claims subject to the 6 MMA based, in part, on allegations of malpractice by a physician not employed by 7 the hospital for which plaintiffs claimed the hospital was vicariously l iable. After 8 the hospital filed a third

- party complaint for equitable indemnification against the 9 physician and his employer , in compliance with the MMA’s requirements 10 concerning pre

- filing review and decision by the Medical Review Commission, 11 plaintiffs s uccessfully moved for orders staying that action and preventing the 12
third

- party defendants from participating in discovery in plaintiffs’ case against the 13 hospital, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had chosen not to sue the 14
third

- party defendan ts and had no interest in the ho spital’s indemnification claim. 15 Nevertheless, one plaintiff acquired the hospital’s indemnification claim by 16 assignment in settling plaintiffs’ case against the hospital and then moved to lift the 17 stay and take over as third

- party plaintiff on that claim. 18

{ 2 } The question presented is whether the hospital’s assignment of its 19 indemnification claim to one of the plaintiffs is barred by the MMA’s prohibition 202

against assignment of “[a] patient’s claim for compensation under the [MMA,]” 1
Section 41

- 5

- 12, or the common law. Applying New Mexico precedents 2 concerning statutory construction

— in particular, precedents construing the 3
MMA

— we conclude that the L egislature intended the MMA’s requirements and 4 restrictions to apply to all “malpractice claims” covered by the MMA and hold that 5
Section 41

- 5

- 12 bars assignment of all “malpractice claims” for compensation 6 covered by the MMA. One of these precedents, Wil s chinsky v. Medina , 1989

- 7
NMSC

- 047, ¶ 26, 10 8 N.M. 511, 775 P.2d 713, held that “the [L] egislature 8 intended to cover all causes of action arising in New Mexico that are based on acts 9 of malpractice.” Further, Christus St. Vincent Reg ional Med ical C en t e r v. D uarte

10 Afara , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶¶ 1, 14

- 20, 267 P.3d 70 , made clear that the character of 11 an indemnification claim under the common law as “separate and distinct from the 12 underlying tort” does not control determination of whether the MMA’s 13 requirements and re strictions apply. Our statutory construction analysis is 14 dispositive of this appeal, regardless of how a claim not covered by the MMA 15 would be treated under the common law. Our conclusion concerning the 16 assignment issue obviates the need to resolve other i ssues discussed by the parties. 17
BACKGROUND 18

{ 3 } This appeal arises from a complaint asserting claims for wrongful death, 19 negligence, and medical malpractice filed by Nicholas T. Leger, as Personal 203

Representative for the Estate of Michael Thoemke, and Daniel Thoemke, 1 individually (collectively, Plaintiffs), against Presbyterian Healthcare Services 2 (PHS) after Michael Thoemke died at Presbyterian Hospital. Although the 3 complaint did not name Dr. Richard Gerety as a defendant, it included allegations 4

conc erning Dr. Gerety’s conduct in consulting on Michael’s case while “acting 5 within the course and scope of his employment, or acting as the agent or ostensible 6 agent of [PHS

. ]” In answering the complaint, PHS admitted that Dr. Gerety 7
consulted on Michael’s c ase but denied allegations that Dr. Gerety was PHS’s 8 cardiothoracic surgeon and that Dr. Gerety acted within “the course and scope of 9 his employment, or act[ed] as the agent or ostensible agent of [PHS].” 10

{ 4 } After obtaining review and decision by the Med ical Review Commission (as 11 required for malpractice claims against a health care provider covered by the 12 MMA, see §§ 41

- 5

- 5,

- 14 , - 15 (A) ) and the district court’s leave to file, PHS filed a 13
third

- party complaint against Dr. Gerety and his employer, New Mex ico Heart 14 Institute (NMHI) (collectively, Appellants) , stating , “[I]n the event that Dr. Gerety 15 is found negligent in [this] suit, and in the event that PHS is found to be vicariously 16 liable for the conduct of Dr. Gerety, then PHS is entitled to indemnification from 17 [Appellants] for all fees, expenses, judgment s , sett lements and any and all other 18 damages reasonably related to the alleged conduct of Dr. Gerety.” In answering the 19
third

- party complaint, Appellants denied that Dr. Gerety was negligent and that 204

PHS “is vicariously liable for the alleged acts and omissions o f Dr. Gerety” and 1 alleged affirmative defenses. 2

{ 5 } Plaintiffs moved to sever or bifurcate and stay the third

- party complaint, 3 arguing (among other things) that PHS’s suit “is contingent upon a jury first 4 finding that PHS is liable for the death of Michael Thoemke, and that PHS’s 5 liability is based, in whole or in part, upon the acts or omissions of [Appellants] ” ; 6
“Plaintiffs have no interest in the outcome of PHS’ [s] common law 7
indemnificati on claims” ; “Plaintiffs should not be dragged into a dispute that does 8 not involve them, and tha t is not yet perfected or ripe” ; “[n]othing in the law 9 requires Plaintiffs to sue those third parties and Plai ntiffs here have chosen not to” ; 10

“ Plaintiffs have no standing or interest in any post

- judgment indemnification 11 claims brough t by PHS against third parties” ; and the indemnification claim would 12 not accrue unless Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against PHS. Plaintiffs also moved 13 for a protective order from discovery propounded by Appellants , arguing again that 14
Plainti ffs did not sue Appellants and “have no interest or stake” in the third

- party 15 action, and that PHS’s indemnification claim had not accrued. The district court 16 granted both motions, and denied PHS’s later motion to reconsider the ord er 17 granting severance an d stay. 18

{ 6 } Plaintiffs ultimately settled their claims against PHS, and the district court 19 dismissed those claims with prejudice. As part of that settlement, PHS assigned to 205

Nicolas T. Leger, as Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of 1
Michael Thoemke: 2 Any and all rights, claims, and causes of action of [PHS] against 3 [ Appellants ] arising out of claims for indemnification, contribution, or 4 any other rights or claims arising out of [PHS’s] payment of defense 5 fees, defense costs relating to claims of medical negligence against 6 [ Appellants ], and payment of any amounts, including payments made 7 in settlement to

. . . Plaintiffs in the matter known as Leger, et al. v. 8 Presbyterian Healthcare Services , . . . including the claims brought by 9 [PHS] against [ Appellants ] in the May 21, 2013 [t] hird

- [p] arty 10 [c] omplaint for indemnification filed therein. 11

{ 7 } Following the settlement, Leger moved to lift the stay of PHS’s third

- party 12 complaint and for leave to file an amended third

- party complaint, stati ng , “Now 13 that the underlying case is fully resolved, and the [t] hird [p] arty claims assigned to 14 Leger, the time has come for the stay of the [t] hird [p] arty [a] ction to be lifted and 15 that action to proceed to trial.” 16

{ 8 } In separate responses, Appellants did not oppose the request to lift the stay 17 but opposed the motion to amend (with NMHI adopting Dr. Gerety’s arguments 18 while asserting additional arguments). As relevant here, Dr. Gerety argued that the 19 indemnification claim is “a claim for compensation u nder the [MMA]” and a 20 “medical malpractice claim” that is “covered by all of the regulatory aspects of the 21 [MMA] , ” and that Section 41

- 5

- 12 (prohibiting assignment of “[a] patient’s claim 22 for compensation under the [MMA]”) should not be interpreted “to pro hibit 23 assignments only by patients” but to prohibit assignment of malpractice claims 246

governed by the MMA, consistent with legislative intent as interpreted by New 1 Mexico case law. He also argued that the common

- law prohibition against 2 assignment of persona l inj ury claims prohibits assignment ; Leger cannot recover 3 more than the maximum permitted by Section 41

- 5

- 6, and allowing Leger to 4
recover on the indemnification claim would increase costs to the healthcare 5
system ; Leger’s recovery on the indemnification claim is barred by public policy 6 against double recovery ; and having chosen not to present a claim to the Medical 7 Review Commission (presentation requirement), not to sue Dr. Gerety, and to 8 obtain an order severing and staying the third

- party action, Leger should not be 9 allowed to prosecute the claim after the expiration of the MMA’s statute of repose 10 ( Section 41

- 5

- 13). 11

{ 9 } Leger’s reply to Dr. Gerety’s response argued (among other things) that 12 assignment is not barred because the assignment transferred “an interest in 13 property and is common in commercial enterprises”; the indemnification claim, 14 “while subject to provisions o f the [MMA], is separate and distinct from the 15 original claims of personal injury/bodily injury”; and the indemnification claim is 16 not a “patient’s” claim for compensation falling within the MMA’s anti

17 assignment provision because PHS does not meet the MMA ’s definition of 18 “patient” as “a natural person” under Section 41

- 5

- 3(E). Leger also argued that 19 there would be no double recovery because the assignment gave Leger “the 207

property rights to any recovery PHS is entitled to” and “PHS has not obtain ed any 1

reco very in this matter” and that neither the MMA’s presentation requirement nor 2 the MMA’s statute of repose barred Leger’s prosecution of the indemnification 3 claim because PHS had satisfied both requirements and the proposed amendments 4
to the third

- party comp laint were non

- substantive changes that relate b ack to the 5 original PHS filing. 6

{ 10 } After the district court granted his motion, Leger, “as [a] ssignee of [PHS],” 7
filed a n amended third

- party complaint , asserting that PHS is entitled to 8
indemnification if Dr. Gerety is found negligent and PHS is found vicariously 9 liable for Dr. Gerety’s conduct, and that “PHS has paid out sums due to its 10 vicarious liability for Dr. Gerety’s actions and omissions and is therefore entitled 11
to indemnification.” 12

{ 11 } Appella nts moved to dismiss Leger’s amended third

- party complaint, 13 arguing again that PHS’s indemnity claim is a claim for compensation covered by 14
the MMA’s anti

- assignment provision and common

- law prohibition against 15 assignment of personal injury claims and, even assuming a lawful assignment, the 16 claim was barred by Leger’s failure to comply with the MMA’s presentation 17 requirement and statute of repose. In opposing the motion, Leger reiterated his 18 prior arguments that the assignment is not barred by the c ommon law because the 19 assignment did not transfer a personal injury claim but “an interest in an 208

equitable/monetary claim and is common in commercial enterprises” or prohibited 1 by the MMA, and that the MMA’s presentation requirement and statute of re pose 2
h ad been satisfied by PHS. 3

{ 12 } Appellants also moved for summary judgment on the ground that Leger 4 could not meet the requirements necessary to prev ail on an indemnification claim , 5 in part, because the settlement agreement with PHS did not discharge the li ability 6
of Appellants and so did not “buy peace” for them. In opposing that motion, Leger 7 repeatedly stated that PHS intended “to discharge all tortfeasor liability to original 8 Plaintiffs,” including “for the actions of [ Appellants ,]” and that the “ [ r ] elease 9 discharges liability for the underl[y]ing tort concerning all agents (past, present, 10 actual, ostensible and borrowed).” Leger stated further: 11 Because PHS paid amounts to cover 100% of the underlying liability 12 claim, original Plaintiffs could no long er maintain suit against 13 [Appellants] in the underlying case. To do so would violate the 14 principle against double recovery. See Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v

. 15 Central N

ew M exico Elec. Co

- op, Inc

. [ , ] 2013

- NMSC

- 017, [¶ 47,] 16 301 P.3d 387 ( [“]I n general, plaintiffs may not collect more than the 17 damages awarded to them, or, put another way, they may not receive 18 compensation twice for the same injury [.”] ). As such, when PHS 19 settled the case for the entire value of the case, by operation of law, 20 original Plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against other 21 Defendants in the underlying tort claim

. . . [and] once the original, 22 underlying Plaintiffs could no longer maintain suit against 23 [Appellants] , [Leger and PHS were] entitled to seek indemnification. 24 . . . [B]y operation of law, there is no more recovery available from 25 [Appellants] to the original, underlying Plaintiff [s] . As a result of the 26 extinguishment of [Appellants’] liability to the original, underlying 27 Plaintiffs [’] claims, [Leger and PHS are] now able to go forward with 28 the indemnification claims. 299

Leger also stated that “[ Appellants ’] liability to the original, underlying Plaintiffs 1 in the underlying case was discharged by operation of law” because Plaintiffs had 2 not brought “ direct claims against [Appellants] ” within the statute of repose. The 3 reply arguments of Appellants included the following: 4 [T]he [c] ourt should not validate the assignment or allow Leger to 5 circumvent the [MMA] by choosing not to sue Dr. Gerety, convincing 6 the [c] ourt and Dr. Gerety that he had no interest in the indemnity 7 action and excluding Dr. Gerety from participating in the underlying 8 case, then extracting from PHS an[] assignment of its indemnity 9 claim, all in order to collect 100% of his damages from PHS and then 10
recove r the same damages from Dr. Gerety. . . . To allow patients to 11 obtain 100% of their damages from one healthcare provider, and then 12 demand an assignment of that provider’s indemnity claim against 13 another provider, in order to allow the patient to obtain mor e than 14 100% of his damages, would frustrate the purpose of the Act and 15 simply add to the overall cost of delivering health ca r e as plain tiff s 16 ‘double dip’ their claims. 17

{ 13 } The district court denied Appellants’ motions in a letter decision. In denying 18 the motion for summary judgment just discussed, the court stated that “ [P] laintiffs, 19 by settling with PHS and executing the [r] elease settled any and all claims that 20 [P] laintiffs had against PHS, [Appellants] and, thereby ‘bought peace’ for 21 [Appellants] as to all of the underlying claims brought by [P] laintiffs against PHS, 22 Dr. Gerety and NMHI [

. ] ” The court also stated that Leger’s prosecution of the 23 indemnification claim “will not violate the prohibition against do uble recovery as 24 [P] laintiffs have fully recovered what they could for their claims” and the damages 25 they seek to recover from Appellants through the assignment are “not for the 2610

underlying claims brought by original [P] laintiffs, but for indemnification as a 1 result of the damages PHS paid to [P] laintiffs for the negligence of [Appellants] , 2
which claim [ s are] separate and distinct from the claims made by [P] laintiff [s] in 3 the underlying cause of action [

. ] ” 4

{ 14 } In denying the motion to dismiss discussed abov e, the court stated that “the 5 indemnity claims in this matter are assignable because they are not personal injury 6 claims,” but claims “separate and distinct from the underlying tort” and that the 7 MMA’s presentation requirement and statute of repose were sa tisfied by PHS. In a 8 separate order, the district court certified for interlocutory review the “issues of 9
whether

. . . the common law and/or [ Section ] 41

- 5

- 12

. . . prohibits the assignment 10 of an indemnity claim against a qualified healthcare provider.” Appellants filed an 11 application for interlocutory review, which this Court granted. 12
DISCUSSION 13
A. Principles of Statutory Construction 14

{ 15 } Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Baker v. 15
Hedstrom , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 10, 309 P.3d 1047. “When construing statutes, our 16 guiding principle is to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” Id. ¶ 11 17 ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State ex rel. Helman v. 18 Gallegos , 1994

- NMSC

- 023, ¶ 25, 117 N.M. 346, 871 P.2d 1352 (“[W]e believe it 19 to be the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to 2011

facilitate and promote the [L] egislature’s accomplishment of its purpose

— 1 especially when such action involves correcting an apparent legislative mistake.”); 2
see also In re Portal , 2002

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 5, 132 N.M. 171, 45 P.3d 891 (“Statutes 3 are to be read in a way that facilitates their operation and the achievement of their 4 goals.” ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ) ; D’Avignon v. Graham , 5
1991

- NMCA

- 125, ¶ 11, 113 N.M. 129, 823 P.2d 929 (explaining that “the cardinal 6 rule of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent” and th at New 7 Mexico courts “have rejected formalistic and mechanistic interpretation of 8 statutory language”). 9

{ 16 } In performing this duty, we must consider the provisions at issue “in the 10 context of the statute as a whole, including the purposes and consequence s of the 11
Act.” Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 15; see State v. Rivera , 2004

- NMSC

- 001, ¶ 13, 12 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (stating that courts must analyze a “statute’s function 13 within a comprehensive legislative scheme” and may not consider subsections “in 14
a vacuum” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ); Key v. Chrysler 15 Motors Corp. , 1996

- NMSC

- 038, ¶ 14, 121 N.M. 764, 918 P.2d 350 (“[A]ll parts of 16 a statute must be read together to ascertain legislative intent. We are to read the 17 statute in its entirety an d construe each part in connection with every other part to 18 produce a harmonious whole.” (citation omitted) ). 1912

{ 17 } “Rules of statutory construction dictate that when a statute’s language is 1 clear and unambiguous and it conveys a clear and definite meaning, the statute 2 must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Key , 1996

- NMSC

- 038, ¶ 13. Our 3 Supreme Court has admonis hed, however, that “courts must exercise caution in 4 applying the plain meaning rule” because “[i]ts beguiling simplicity may mask a 5 host of reasons why a statute, apparently clear and unambiguous on its face, may 6 for one reason or another give rise to legi timate (i.e., nonfrivolous) differences of 7 opinion concerning the statute’s meaning.” Helman , 1994

- NMSC

- 023, ¶ 23; see 8
Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 15 ( citing Helman for these “wise words of caution in 9 applying the plain meaning rule”). 10

{ 18 } Helman discussed at length the “plain meaning” and “rejection

- of

- literal

11 language ” approaches to statutory construction, explaining that “the two 12 approaches, correctly understood, can be viewed as complementary, not 13 contradictory.” 1994

- NMSC

- 023, ¶¶ 1

- 3, 18

- 26. The Court aff irmed that “if the 14 meaning of a statute is truly clear

— not vague, uncertain, ambiguous, or otherwise 15
doubtful

—

it is of course the responsibility of the judiciary to apply the statute as 16
written.” Id. ¶ 22. “But where the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an 17 adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or 18 contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, 1913

even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of other s.” Id. ¶ 1 3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court explained: 2 In such a case, it can rarely be said that the legislation is indeed free 3 from all ambiguity and is crystal clear in its meaning. While

. . . one 4 part of the statute may ap pear absolutely clear and certain to the point 5 of mathematical precision, lurking in another part of the enactment, or 6 even in the same section, or in the history and background of the 7 legislation, or in an apparent conflict between the statutory wording 8
a nd the overall legislative intent, there may be one or more provisions 9 giving rise to genuine uncertainty as to what the [L] egislature was 10 trying to accomplish. In such a case, it is part of the essence of judicial 11 responsibility to search for and effectua te the legislative intent

— the 12 purpose or object

— underlying the statute. 13
Id. ¶ 23. 14

{ 19 } The Court cautioned further, quoting from Judge Learned Hand “words 15 which we believe provide the proper orientation that a court should bring to 16 resolution of a disput e which turns on the purportedly plain meaning of a 17

statute [:] ” 18 There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it 19 literally; in every interpretation we must pass bet ween Scylla and 20 Charybdis.

. . . As nearly as we can, we must put ourselves in the 21 place of those who uttered the words, and try to divine how they 22 would have dealt with the unforeseen situation; and, although their 23 words are by far the most decisive evidence of what they would have 24 done, they are by no means final. 25
Id. ¶ 26 ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Concluding that the statute 26 at issue was ambiguous, despite “clarity and precision” in some aspects, Helman 27 followed the “rejection

- of

- literal

- language ” approach to resolve the statutory 2814

construction issue presented. Id. ¶¶ 3, 27

- 29 ; s ee also Ortiz v. Overland Express , 1
2010

- NMSC

- 021, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 405, 237 P.3d 707 (acting pursuant to the 2 judicial “duty to effectuate legislative intent” to correct the L egislature’s “apparent 3 oversight” in having removed definitions; explaining that “ [our Supreme] Court 4 has consistently recognized that it is appropriate for the [j] udiciary to look beyond 5 the plain meaning of the statute’s language to effectuate legislative intent when the 6 statute is ambiguo us”). 7
B. The MMA 8

{ 20 } The MMA’s stated purpose is “to promote the health and welfare of the 9 people of New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance for 10 health care providers in New Mexico.” Section 41

- 5

- 2. As has been widely 11 recognized, the MMA was enacted to address a perceived medical malpractice 12 crisis in New Mexico by “providing a framework for tort liability with which the 13 insurance industry could operate [ , ] ” one that “restrict[s] and limit[s] plaintiffs’ 14 rights under the common law” through “several procedural measures and by 15 establishing a limitation on full recovery for malpractice injury [

. ] ” Wilschinsky , 16
1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 21; see Cahn v. Berryman , 2018

- NMSC

- 002, ¶ 13, 408 P.3d 17 1012 (discussing concerns prompting the MMA’s enactment ); Baker , 2013

- 18
NMSC

- 043, ¶ 16 (same); see also Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs. , 1992

- 19
NMSC

- 042, ¶ 15, 114 N.M. 248, 837 P.2d 442 (“ [T] he Act established new 2015

procedural and substantive restrictions on malpractice liability

. ” (internal quotation 1
marks omit ted) ) . As our Supreme Court explained in Baker : 2 To give effect to the purpose of the MMA, the Legislature created a 3 balanced scheme to encourage health care providers to opt into the 4 Act by conferring certain benefits to them, which it then balanced 5 with t he benefits it provided to their patients. The Legislature made 6 professional liability insurance available to health care providers but 7 conditioned availability to that insurance on a quid pro quo: health 8 care providers could receive the benefits of the MM A only if they 9 became qualified health care providers under the MMA and accepted 10 the burdens of doing so. 11
2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 17 (alteration, internal quotation marks , and citation omitted). 12

{ 21 } To be “qualified” under the MMA, a “health care provider , ” as defined by 13
Section 41

- 5

- 3(A) , must comply with the requirements of Section 41

- 5

- 5, 14 including by establishing “financial responsibility” and paying a surcharge into the 15 “patient’s compensation fund” as described in Section 41

- 5

- 25. A health care 16 provider who does not comply with the qu alification requirements of Section 41

- 5

- 17 5 “shall not have the benefit of any of the provisions of the [MMA].” Section 41

- 5

- 18 5(C). 19

{ 22 } The MMA expressly limits the aggregate amount recoverable “by all 20 persons for or arising from any injury or death to a pa tient as a result of 21 malpractice” to $600,000 “per occurrence,” exclusive of punitive damages and 22
medical care and related benefits. Section 41

- 5

- 6(A). It also provides that “[a]ny 23 amount due from a judgment or settlement in excess of” the $200,000 statuto ry 2416

limit on a healthcare provider’s personal liability “shall be paid from the patient’s 1 compensation fund,” Section 41

- 5

- 6(D), and that “the fund shall only be expended 2 for the purposes of and to the extent provided in the [MMA , ]” Section 41

- 5

- 25(A). 3
C. T he MMA Does Not Clearly and Unambiguously Limit the Scope of the 4 Prohibition Against Assignment of Claims for Compensation 5

{ 23 } Section 41

- 5

- 12, provides that “[a] patient’s claim for compensation under 6 the [MMA] is not assignable.” The MMA does not defi ne “patient’s claim for 7 compensation” or “patient’s claim.” It does define “malpractice claim” (with 8 exceptions not relevant here) to 9 include[] any cause of action arising in this state against a health care 10 provider for medical treatment, lack of medica l treatment or other 11 claimed departure from accepted standards of health care which 12 proximately results in injury to the patient, whether the patient’s claim 13 or cause of action sounds in tort or contract, and includes but is not 14 limited to actions based on battery or wrongful death[.] 15
Section 41

- 5

- 3(C). And it defines “patient” as “a natural person who received or 16 should have received health care from a licensed health care provider, under a 17 contract, express or implied[.]” Section 41

- 5

- 3(E). 18

{ 24 } Leger contends that “the Act clearly and unambiguously sought to limit its 19 prohibition against assignment of claims to claims of a ‘patient,’ as that term is 20
defined in the Act.” Leger’s textual argument is that the indemnification claim he 21 seeks to prosecute is PHS’s claim, and because PHS is “a corporation and hospital” 22 and not a “natural person,” PHS is not a “patient” and, therefore, the 2317

indemnification claim is not a “patient’s claim.” Even if the definition of “patient” 1 is clear and unambiguous, that does n ot resolve the question of the L egislature’s 2 intent concerning application of Section 41

- 5

- 12’s prohibition against assignment, 3 especially given the absence of any definition of “[a] patient’s claim” or “claim for 4 compensation” separate from the definition of “malpractice claim,” and the use of 5
these terms in the context of the statute as a whole. 6

{ 25 } Appellants contend that “patient’s claim” and “malpractice claim” are used 7 interchangeably in Section 41

- 5

- 3(C) (i.e., the provision defining “malpractice 8

c laim” as “includ[ing] any cause of action . . . which proximately results in injury 9 to the patient, whether the patient’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or 10 contract”), and that this reflects the L egislature’s intent in Section 41

- 5

- 12 to treat 11 “p atient’s claim” as the equivalent of “malpractice claim.” Precedents discussed 12 below, interpreting the MMA as governing a claim brought by a non

- patient and a 13 hospital’s indemnification claim against a physician, notwithstanding the absence 14 of statutory te xt specifically stating that such claims are subject to the MMA, 15 arguably weaken Appellants’ equivalence argument. Nevertheless, the phrase 16 “whether the patient’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract” in 17
Section 41

- 5

- 3(C) does suggest equiva lence, and language used throughout the 18 MMA reflects a statutory scheme addressing the liability of health care providers 19 on claims arising in the first instance from “injury to the patient” resulting from 2018

medical malpractice (Section 41

- 5

- 3(C)), and conte mplating litigation commenced 1 by a “patient” or a representative of the patient against a “health care provider.” 1 2

1 See § 41

- 5

- 4 (“A patient or his representative having a malpractice claim for bodily injury or death may file a complaint in any court of law having requisite jurisdiction and demand right of trial by jury. . . . This section shall not prevent a patient or his r epresentative from alleging a requisite jurisdictional amount in a malpractice claim filed in a court requiring such an allegation.”); § 41

- 5

- 13 ( discussing a “claim for malpractice arising out of an act of malpractice”); § 41

- 5

- 7(A) (“In all malpractice c laims where liability is established, the jury shall be given a special interrogatory asking if the patient is in need of future medical care and related benefits. . . . In actions upon malpractice claims tried to the court, where liability is found, the c ourt’s findings shall include a recitation that the patient is or is not in need of future medical care and related benefits.”); § 41

- 5

- 7(B) ( discussing a patient’s future medical care and related benefits “once a judgment is entered in favor of a patient . . . or a settlement is reached between a patient and health care provider”); § 41

- 5

- 10 (A) (entitling health care providers to have a physical examination of the patient); § 41

- 5

- 14(A) (creating medical review commission “to provide panels to review all m alpractice claims against health care providers covered by the [ MMA ] ”); § 41

- 5

- 11(A) (providing for apportionment of the amount “each defendant is obligated to pay” on a “judgment in favor of the patient” where the amount paid in advance “exceeds the liabi lity of the defendant or the insurer making it”) ; § 41

- 5

- 15(A) (“No malpractice action may be filed in any court against a qualifying health care provider before application is made to the medical review commission and its decision is rendered.”); § 41

- 5

- 2 1 (“No rule shall be adopted

. . . which requires a party to make a monetary payment as a condition to bringing a malpractice claim before the medical review panel.”); § 41

- 5

- 22 ( discussing “ [t] he running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim”); § 41

- 5

- 23 (“In any malpractice claim where the panel has determined that the acts complained of were or reasonably might constitute malpractice and that the patient was or may have be en injured by the act, the panel, its members, the director and the professional association concerned will cooperate fully with the patient in retaining a physician qualified in the field of medicine involved, who will consult with, assist in trial prepar ation and testify on behalf of the patient, upon his payment of a reasonable fee to the same effect as if the physician had been engaged originally by the patient.”).19

{ 26 } Although the text and context of the statute as a whole provides support for 1 the proposition that the L egislature intended equivalence in the terms “patient’s 2 claim” and “malpractice claim,” we conclude that the statute is ambiguous, and the 3 question of the L egislature’s intent concerning application of Section 41

- 5

- 12’s 4 prohibition against assignment canno t be answered based on the MMA’s “literal 5 language.” In cases construing the MMA, our Supreme Court has recognized that 6
the L egislature has, at times, been “simply imprecise with its language” and 7 refused to “parse the Legislature’s words in . . . a litera l and mechanical manner” 8 or to “rest [its] conclusions upon the plain meaning of the language if the intention 9 of the Legislature suggests a meaning different from that suggested by the literal 10 language of the law.” Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 30 ( alteration, internal quotation 11 marks, and citation omitted ). We turn now to the analysis employed in precedents 12 interpreting the MMA “in the context of the statute as a whole, including the 13 purposes and consequences of the Act.” Id. ¶ 15. 14
D. The Analysis Emp loyed in Precedents Construing t he MMA Requires 15 the Conclusion T hat Leger’s Indemnification Claim Is Subject to All 16 MMA Restrictions, Including the Prohibition Against Assignment 17

{ 27 } In Wil s chinsky , our Supreme Court applied statutory

- construction principles 18

to t he MMA, including consideration of legislative intent and policy implications, 19

see 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶¶ 21

- 26, where “the [L] egislature did not directly address 20 potential recovery by third parties,” id. ¶ 22; “[n]o language in the [MMA] 2120

specifically addresses the issue of third

- party recovery for an act of malpractice[,]” 1
id. ¶ 20; and “the activity at issue falls neither within the articulated ambit of the 2 statutory definition, nor within the ambit of t he exclusion [ , ] ” id. ¶ 24. In reaching 3
its conclusion that “the [L] egislature intended to cover all causes of action arising 4 in New Mexico that are based on acts of malpractice [ , ] ” our Supreme Court 5 explained that “[w]hen we find, as we do here, a clash be tween the intent of the 6 [L] egislature and its own definitional section, we seek to harmonize the two.” Id. ¶ 7
26. 8

{ 28 } Wil s chinsky addressed the question whether the MMA applies to “claims 9 based on malpractice asserted by non

- patients against a physician wh o is qualified 10 under the [MMA

. ]” Id. ¶ 1. In analyzing the definition of “malpractice claim” in 11 the context of the MMA as a whole and the policy implications flowing from its 12 interpretation, our Supreme Court noted several factors impacting the analysis, 13
i ncluding the following: (a) “the nonmedical nature of the articulated exclusion in 14 paragraph C [of Section 41

- 5

- 3] is at least some evidence the [L] egislature foresaw 15 and intended broad application of the concept of a ‘malpractice claim’ ”; (b) “if we 16

reco gnize a third

- party cause of action for the [plaintiffs] and it is not covered by 17 the Act, a third party would be placed in a better position to achieve full recovery 18 from an act of malpractice than would the patient malpracticed upon”; and (c) “the 19
clear intent of the [L] egislature, as articulated in Section 41

- 5

- 2, was to make 2021

malpractice insurance available to health care providers.” Wilschinsky , 1989

- 1
NMSC

- 047, ¶ 25. Finding “compelling” the “underlying logic” of a Florida case 2 reasoning that “the gravamen of the third

- party action is predicated upon the 3 allegation of professional negligence by a practicing physician [ , ] ” id. ¶ 27 (internal 4 quotation marks and ci tation omitted), our Supreme Court held that the third

- party 5 cause of action at issue “falls within the purpose of the [MMA] and should be 6 pursued according to its guidelines [ , ] ” id. ¶ 28. 7

{ 29 } In Duarte

- Afara this Court followed Wil s chinsky ’s instruction that “ a claim 8 may be construed as a malpractice claim within the meaning of the MMA if ‘the 9 gravamen of the third

- party action is predicated upon the allegation of professional 10 negligence by a practicing physician’” in determining that “the gravamen of [th e 11 m] edical [c] enter’s equitable indemnification claim is predicated upon the 12 allegation that [d]octors negligently caused, and were partly liable for, [ the 13 patient’s] injuries” and held that the m edical c enter’s equitable indemnification 14 claim against doct ors “is a malpractice claim as that term is used in the MMA” and 15 is subject to the MMA’s statute of repose. Duarte

- Afara , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 15. 16

“ We reach [ ed ] this conclusion in part, so as to carry out the policy goals the 17 Legislature intended by enacting the MMA and [its statute of repose,]” reasoning 18 that, “[i]n effect, the [m] edical [c] enter’s equitable indemnification claim exposes 19 [d]octors to the identic al liability to which they were subject under [the patient]’s 2022

claims [ , ] ” which “were properly dismissed as untimely.” Id. ¶ 16. Permitting the 1 equitable indemnification claim to proceed where the patient’s claim could not 2
would “elevate form over substance and frustrate the underlying concerns which 3 motivated our Legislature to enact the MMA and [its statute of repose provision].” 4
Id. 5

{ 30 } Duarte

- Afara recognized that an indemnification claim must allege that the 6
defendant caused “ direct harm to a third pa rty,” the liability for which harm was 7 discharged by the party seeking indemnification, and that “a cause of action for 8 indemnification is separate and distinct from the underlying tort.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 18. 9 Nevertheless, Duarte

- Afara held that “the controlling inquiry in determining 10 whether a claim constitutes a ‘malpractice claim’ under the MMA is merely 11 whether the gravamen of the claim is predicated upon the allegation of professional 12 negligence.” Id. ¶ 18. 13

{ 31 } In Baker , our Supre me Court interpreted the MMA’s definition of “health 14 care provider,” which the plaintiffs contended did not include the business 15 organizations under which the defendant doctors operated, “in the context of the 16 statute as a whole, including the purposes and consequences of the Act.” 2013

- 17
NMSC

- 043, ¶

¶ 14

- 15. The Court concluded that “several provisions in the Act 18 indicate that the Legislature intended professional medical organizations

. . . to be 19 covered by the Act,” rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the business 2023

organizations at issue “are not entitled to qualify as ‘health care providers’ under 1 the MMA” because they “do not fit into any” category included in Section 41

- 5

- 2 3(A)’s definition and “were not specifically included by the Legislature in any 3 other part of the MMA[.]” Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶¶ 1, 14 , 31. 4

{ 32 } Among other points made in the analysis, Baker stated that, “[i]n l ight of the 5
Act ’ s purpose, we can discern no reason why the Legislature would intend to cover 6 individual medical professionals under the Act while excluding the business 7 organizations that they operate under to provide health care” and that nothing in 8
the MMA indicated le gislative intent “to impair or eliminate the ability of 9 physicians to practice under the umbrella of a professional entity.” Id. ¶ 21 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) . The Court also rejected the 11 plaintiffs’ interpretation on the ground that it “conflicts with both the Legislature’s 12 stated purpose and its goal to assure that providers of health care are adequately 13
covered in New Mexico [ , ] ” stating that the Court would not “construe a statute to 14 defeat its intended purpose.” Id. (alteration, i nternal quotation marks , and citation 15 omitted). 16

{ 33 } In the years that have passed since these decisions issued, interpreting as 17 within the MMA claims that fall outside the MMA’s scope under a plain

- language 18 construction, the L egislature has taken no actio n to correct them. 1924

{ 34 } Appellants argue that the analysis employed in these and other decisions 1 construing the MMA support their position that Section 41

- 5

- 12 must be 2 interpreted to prohibit assignment of all “malpractice claims” subject to the MMA, 3 not j ust those claims assigned by a “patient.” Leger attempts to distinguish these 4 cases by characterizing them as having “read language and limitations into the Act 5 that are not expressly stated in the Act [ , ] ” “supplement[ing] the Act where the 6 Legislature was silent [ , ] ” while characterizing an interpretation of the anti

7 assignment provision that includes in its prohibition an indemnification claim 8 based on medical malpractice as an attempt “to remove express provisions in the 9 Act.” He contends that “the relief sought by Appellants here would require this 10 Court to engage in inappropriate judicial surgery to excise a key, defined term 11 inserted by the Legislature into [S]ection 41

- 5

- 12.” We disagree with these 12
characterizatio ns. Even assuming that Leger’s inclusion

- versus
- excision 13 characterization were accurate, it makes no difference to the analysis. As 14 discussed, we must perform our “high duty and responsibility . . . to facilitate and 15 promote the [L] egislature’s accomplishm ent of its purpose

— especially when such 16 action involves correcting an apparent legislative mistake[,]” Helman , 1994

- 17
NMSC

- 023, ¶ 25, “even though this requires the rejection of words or the 18 substitution of others[,]” id. ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and ci tation omitted). 1925

{ 35 } Leger also argues that the indemnification claim falls outside Section 41

- 5

- 1 12’s prohibition on assignment because it is not, and is separate and distinct from, 2 a personal injury claim under the common law, and the L egislature enacted Section 3
41

- 5

- 12 to codify a general common

- law rule prohibiting assignment of personal 4 injury claims. We do not agree. 5

{ 36 } P recedents interpreting the MMA establish that neither the MMA’s literal 6 language nor the character and treatment of a claim under the common law is 7 dispositive of whether a claim is subject to the MMA’s restrictions and limitations. 8 If the MMA’s literal language controlled, Wil s chinsky would not have held that the 9 MMA’s restrictions and limitations apply to a non

- patient’s claim for injury 10 resulting from medical malpractice, given statutory text defining “malpractice 11 claim” as a cause of action arising from an “injury to the patient” and the absence 12 of language that “specifically addresses the issue of third

- party recovery for an act 13 of malpractice.” Wil s chinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶¶ 20

- 28; see also Baker , 2013

- 14
NMSC

- 043, ¶¶ 12

- 21 (rejecting argument that MMA does not apply to 15 professional medical organizations not specifically identified in MMA’s definition 16 of “health care provider”). An d if the common law’s treatment of indemnification 17 claims as “separate and distinct from the underlying tort” were dispositive of the 18 question of the MMA’s application to a claim, Duarte

- Afara would not have held 19
that the MMA’s restrictions and limitations apply to a hospital’s indemnification 2026

claim against doctors based on “the gravamen of the claim [a]s predicated upon the 1 allegation of professional negligence[,]” notwithstanding the “separate and 2
distinct” nature of indemnification claims under the commo n law. 2011

- NMCA

3 112, ¶ 1 8

. 4

{ 37 } In light of these precedents, we cannot agree that use of the word “patient” 5
in Section 41

- 5

- 12 reflects the L egislature’s intent to “codify” a general common

6 law rule prohibiting assignment of personal injury claims or th at the common law’s 7 treatment of indemnification claims as “separate and distinct from the underlying 8 tort” requires the conclusion that the L egislature specifically intended to limit 9 application of the prohibition against assignment of claims covered by t he MMA to 10 claims falling within the common

- law rule prohibiting assignment of personal 11 injury claims. Given Duarte

- Afara ’s holding that the common law is not 12 dispositive of the question whether a claim is subject to the MMA’s restrictions 13 and limitations, we see no basis for concluding that the common law is dispositive 14 of whether and how particular MMA restrictions and limitations apply. W hile we 15 presume that the L egislature was aware of existing law when it enacted the MMA, 16 we also presume that the L egislature enacted the MMA to change , not to codify, 17 the existing law. See , e.g. , Incorporated Cty. of Los Alamos v. Johnson , 1989

- 18
NMSC

- 045, ¶ 4, 108 N.M. 633, 776 P.2d 1252 (“We presume that the 19 [L] egislature is well informed as to existing statutory and common law and does 2027

not intend to enact a nullity, and we also presume that the [ L ] egislature intends to 1 change existing law when it enacts a new statute .” (emphasis added) ) ; State ex rel. 2 Bird v. Apodaca , 1977

- NMSC

- 110, ¶ 12, 91 N.M. 279, 573 P.2d 213 (“We assume 3 that the Legislature is well informed as to existing statutory and common law, and 4
that it does not intend to enact useless statutes [

. ] Furthermore, when the 5 Legislature enacts a new statute we presume that it inte nded to change the law as 6 it previously existed .” (emphases added) (citations omitted ) ). 7

{ 38 } Following the rule that “the controlling inquiry in determining whether a 8 claim constitutes a ‘malpractice claim’ under the MMA is merely whether the 9 gravamen of the claim is predicated upon the allegation of professional 10 negligence[,]” Duarte

- Afara , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 18, we conclude that, where an 11 indemnification claim constitutes a “malpractice claim” subject to the MMA, there 12 is no basis for treating the common l aw as dispositive in determining how the 13 MMA’s restrictions and limitations apply to the claim. Cf. Cahn , 2018

- NMSC

14 002, ¶¶ 24

- 25 (explaining that the dissent’s contention that the Court should apply 15 a “background statute of limitations” to resolve an issu e not clearly addressed in 16 the MMA “does not withstand scrutiny” because “our Legislature enacted the 17 MMA and its statute of repose, in part, to supplant the very background statute of 18
limitations the dissent insists should control ” and that “ applying the background 19 statute of limitations is, if anything, the result most inconsistent with the 2028

Legislature’s intentions and the result most intrusive and susceptible to criticism 1 based on separation of powers principles” (emphas e s added) )

. 2 2

{ 39 } We also see no e vidence of legislative intent to create subclasses of 3 “malpractice claims,” with some claims subject to some MMA restrictions and not 4 subject to other restrictions. As discussed, the MMA defines “patient,” but it does 5 not define “patient’s claim” or “patie nt’s claim for compensation” as something 6 different from a “malpractice claim.” Nor is there any evidence of legislative intent 7 to treat claims subject to the MMA differently depending on the holder of the 8 claim at a given point in time. Leger’s interpreta tion of Section 41

- 5

- 12 as 9 prohibiting assignment only by a “patient” requires the conclusion that the non

10 patient in Wil s chinsky could assign a claim a “patient” could not assign. The result 11 would be an “unreasonable classification” contrary to the L egisl ature’s intention 12 “to cover all causes of action arising in New Mexico that are based on acts of 13 malpractice.” Wil s chinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 26; see id. ¶ 25 (“ [I] f we recognize 14

2 As noted, the MMA applies only to claims against qualified health care providers. See § 41

- 5

- 5(C) (“A health care provider not qualifying under this section shall not have the benefit of any of the provisions of the [MMA] in the event of a malpractice claim against it.”); R oberts , 1992

- NMSC

- 042, ¶ 9 (“ [O] nly health care providers meeting the Act’s qualifications, Section 41

- 5

- 5(A), may claim the benefits of the Act, Section 41

- 5

- 5(C)

. ”). In malpractice cases in which the MMA does not apply, courts may determine that indemnification claims should be treated differently from what Leger refers t o as “patient’s claims.” The question presented here concerns only treatment of indemnification claims subject to the MMA.29

a third

- party cause of action for the [plaintiffs] and it is not covered by th e Act, a 1 third party would be placed in a better position to achieve full recovery from an act 2 of malpractice than would the patient malpracticed upon

. ”); see also Duarte

- Afara , 3
2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 16 (permitting equitable indemnification “ claim to proceed 4
where [the patient’s ] claim could not , would

. . . elevate form over substance and 5 frustrate the underlying concerns which motivated our Legislature to enact the 6 MMA and [its statute

- of

- repose provision]”). If the L egislature enacted a sta tutory 7 scheme “to cover all causes of action arising in New Mexico that are based on acts 8 of malpractice” by a qualified health care provider, but with the intention of 9 treating claims covered by the MMA differently depending on different criteria, it 10
woul d have articulated those criteria, rather than providing a single definition of 11 “malpractice claim.” Wilschinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 26. 12

{ 40 } The foregoing analysis leads us to conclude that the L egislature intended the 13 MMA’s requirements and restrictions to apply to all “malpractice claims” covered 14 by the MMA (which the indemnification claim at issue undisputedly is) and, 15 accordingly, that Section 41

- 5

- 12 bars assignment of all “malpractice claims” for 16 compensation covered by the MMA. Given the L egislature’s intention “to cover all 17 causes of action arising in New Mexico that are based on acts of malpractice [ , ] ” 18
Wil s chinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 26, and that “the controlling inquiry in 19 determining whether a claim constitutes a ‘malpractice claim’ under the MMA is 2030

merely whether the gravamen of the claim is predicated upon the allegation of 1 professional negligence[,]” Duarte

- Afar a , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 18, we can discern 2 no reason why the L egislature would intend to subject indemnification claims to 3 every MMA restriction except one

— Section 41

- 5

- 12’s prohibition against 4 assignment

— especially when the result would be an “unreasonable cl assification” 5 permitting non

- patients to do something forbidden to a patient

. S ee Wil s chinsky , 6
1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 26; Duarte

- Afara , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 16. 7

{ 41 } Appellants raise other concerns about the potential consequences of adopting 8 Leger’s interpretation of Section 41

- 5

- 12. Leger dismisses these concerns as a 9 “wholly speculative and implausible[] parade of horribles that might someday arise 10 from allowing the assignment of a claim under the Act [

. ] ” B ut our judicial duty to 11 determine and give effect to the L egislature’s intent in the face of ambiguous text 12 requires that we consider “the context of the statute as a whole, including the 13 purposes and consequences of the Act.” Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 15 (emphasis 14 added). And there are potential consequences of th e interpretation Leger advances 15 that raise legitimate grounds for concern; for example, opening the door to a 16 method of “claim laundering” whereby what Leger refers to as a “patient’s claim” 17 may be transformed into a different claim through assignment as p art of a 18 settlement in which the patient recovers 100% of her damages for the malpractice 19 of health care providers sued and not sued by the patient, which claim the “patient” 2031

(or one acting on behalf of the “patient”) may prosecute separately and, in the 1

p rocess, potentially recover more than 100% of her damages for the same 2 malpractice alleged to have resulted in “injury to the patient.” See Duarte

- Afara , 3
2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 16 (“ I n effect, [ the m] edical [c] enter’s equitable 4 indemnification claim exposes [d]octors to the identical liability to which they 5 were subject under [the patient]’s claims

. ”). 6

{ 42 } The amount of the settlement is not in the record. And we do not know what 7 amount, if any, Leger might have recovered in the third

- party action. But Leger has 8 stated that “PHS paid amounts to cover 100% of the underlying liability claim,” 9 including “for the actions of [ Appellants ].” Although the MMA contains text 10 indicating legislative intent to apportion amounts among qualified health care 11 providers under certain circumstances, see § 41

- 5

- 11(A) (providing for 12 apportionment of the amount “each defendant is obligated to pay” on a “judgment 13 in favor of the patient” where the amount paid in advance “exceeds the liability of 14 the defendant or the insurer making i t”), and Duarte

- Afara held that a hospital’s 15 indemnification claim against doctors is a claim subject to the MMA’s restrictions, 16
we see no indication that the L egislature intended to allow a “patient” (or one 17 acting on behalf of the “patient”) to prosecute indemnification claims and recover 18 more than 100% of her damages for the same malpractice alleged to have resulted 19 in “injury to the patient.” And such a result seems contrary to the purposes for 2032

which the MMA was enacted and the “balanced scheme” the L eg islature created to 1 implement it. See Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 17; Wilschinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, 2 ¶ 21. 3

{ 43 } Although the district court certified only the assignment issue for 4 interlocutory review, Appellants argued in their application and subsequent 5 briefing that Leger’s failures to present a claim against Appellants to the Medical 6
Review Commission and file i t within the MMA’s statute of repose bar Leger from 7 prosecuting the indemnification action. Our disposition of the assignment issue 8 makes it unnecessary to reach those issues. 9
E. The Dissent 10

{ 44 } The dissent suggests that we have failed “to closely examine the words in 11 the Act” and chosen instead to “depend[] on broad generalizations derived from 12 the judiciary’s added gloss in construing the MMA.” Dissent Op. ¶ 59 . The opinion 13 discusses at length numerous principles of statutory construction articulated in 14 New Mexico appellate decisions , including those applied in precedents interpreting 15
the MMA , and considers the statutory text at issue in the context of the MMA as a 16 whole before concluding that the MMA’s plain text does not unambiguously 17 answer the questio n presented. 18

{ 45 } As for the opinion’s consideration of precedents construing the MMA, we 19 are obliged to follow them, along with precedents articulating and applying 2033

principles of statutory construction. Alexander v. Delgado , 1973

- NMSC

- 030, ¶¶ 9

- 1 10, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (stating, in discussing the role of precedent, that 2 “[n]o reason has been advanced which would justify [the Court of Appeals] in 3 refusing to follow the New Mexico Supreme Court decisions” ( internal quotation 4
marks and citation omitte d) ) . Furthermore, the treatise on statutory construction 5 cited in the dissent states that “[t]he most conclusive statutory interpretations come 6 from state court constructions of state statutes”; “ [ j ] udicial construction of a statute 7 becomes part of the leg islation from the time of its enactment ”; and “even an 8 inferior court interpretation may be persuasive.” 2B Norman J. Singer & J.D. 9 Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 49:4, at 20

- 22 (7th ed. 10
2 0 12) (emphasis added). 11

{ 46 } We reject the di ssent’s view that a court interpreting statutory text that does 12 not unambiguously answer the question presented may consider only the law in 13
effect at the time of enactment. Dissent Op. ¶¶ 59, 62, 66. We do not suggest that 14 the precedents discussed above u nambiguously answer the question presented. But 15 the opinion’s analysis is most consistent with the statutory text and with what 16 applicable precedents say about statutory construction and the MMA. 17
The Plain

- Language Argument 18

{ 47 } The dissent argues that “we can and should give effect to the L egislature’s 19 choice of the words ‘patient’s claim’ in Section 41

- 5

- 12 [

. ] ” Dissent Op. ¶ 58. After 2034

concluding that “a ‘patient’s claim’ is a natural person’s cause of action under the 1 MMA, arisi ng from the health care that person received or should have received 2 from a health care provider [ , ] ” id. ¶ 60 , the dissent asserts that “[t]he reference to 3 ‘patient’s claim’ within the definition of ‘malpractice claim’ does not . . . render 4 the terms equivalent” because “[r]eading the definition in this way would render 5 many of its words superfluous,” id. ¶ 61

. 6

{ 48 } As noted, the MMA does not define “pati ent’s claim for compensation” or 7 “patient’s claim.” And the dissent’s reading itself renders superfluous the phrase 8 “whether the patient’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract” in the 9 MMA’s definition of “malpractice claim” as “includ[ing] a ny cause of action 10 arising in this state against a health care provider for medical treatment . . . which 11 proximately results in injury to the patient, whether the patient’s claim or cause of 12
action sounds in tort or contract [.] ” Section 41

- 5

- 3(C) (emphasi s added). These 13 words, and their placement, constitute at least some textual evidence that the 14 [L] egislature understood a “malpractice claim” covered by the MMA as one that 15 originates as a claim by a “patient” against a healthcare provider to which the Act 16 applies. Cf. Cummings v. X

- Ray Assocs. of N.M. , 1996

- NMSC

- 035, ¶ 36 , 121 N.M. 17 821, 918 P.2d 1321 (“A malpractice claim is an attempt by a patient to obtain 18 something he or she does not yet possess: monetary compensation for an injury 19 caused by the neglige nce of a health care practitioner.”). The L egislature’s choice 2035

to use these words in Section 41

- 5

- 3(C) undermines the dissent’s criticism of 1 Appellants’ argument that the L egislature had only “ ‘patient’s claims’ in mind 2
when the MMA was enacted” as “contr ary to the language in the Act.” Dissent Op. 3 ¶ 62. So too does the L egislature’s choice to use language throughout the MMA 4 (cited above in footnote one ) reflecting a scheme to address (in ways that differ 5 from the common law) claims arising from “injury to the patient” resulting from 6 malpractice by a “health care provider” subject to the MMA (Section 41

- 5

- 3(C)), 7 and contemplating litigation commenced by a “patient” or a representative of the 8 patient against a “health care provider.” See , e.g. , § 41

- 5

- 4 (“ A patient or his 9 representative having a malpractice claim for bodily injury or death may file a 10 complaint in any court of law having requisite jurisdict ion and demand right of 11 trial by jury. . . . This section shall not prevent a patient or his representative from 12 alleging a requisite jurisdictional amount in a malpractice claim filed in a court 13 requiring such an allegation.” (emphas e s added) )

. 14

{ 49 } The a rgument that the L egislature intended equivalence between the 15 undefined term “patient’s claim” and the defined term “malpractice claim” is not 16 frivolous, and the plain language does not resolve the issue presented free from all 17
doubt. See Helman , 1994

- NMSC

- 023, ¶ 23 (explaining that the “beguiling 18 simplicity” of the plain language canon of construction “may mask a host of 19 reasons why a statute, apparently clear and unambiguous on its face, may for one 2036

reason or another give rise to legitimate (i.e., nonfriv olous) differences of opinion 1 concerning the statute’s meaning”). A lthough we cannot say that the MMA’s plain 2 language unambiguously equates “patient’s claim” with “malpractice claim,” we 3 can say that the plain text of the MMA, in the only provision that d efines claims 4 subject to the Act as well as in the Act as a whole, provides support for that 5 interpretation. And while the MMA uses both “patient’s claim” and “malpractice 6 claim,” the dissent’s conclusion that “the language of the MMA supports a 7
distinctio n between ‘patient’s claims’ and ‘malpractice claims , ’ ” Dissent Op. ¶ 63, 8 does not demonstrate, free of ambiguity, legislative intent to exclude from Section 9
41

- 5

- 12 every claim falling within the MMA’s definition of “malpractice claim” 10 except those held by a “patient” at the moment of assignment. See Helman , 1994

- 11
NMSC

- 023, ¶¶ 26

- 29 (noting the dangers of literal readings, instructing that “[a]s 12 nearly as we can, we m ust put ourselves in the place of those who uttered the 13 words, and try to divine how they would have dealt with the unforeseen 14 situation[,]” and concluding that the statute at issue was ambiguous, despite 15 “clarity and precision” in some aspects ( internal q uotation marks and citation 16 omitted) ) ; Roberts , 1992

- NMSC

- 042, ¶ 17 (rejecting as “ignor[ing] a cardinal 17 principle of statutory construction, i.e., that the Act should be read as a whole, 18 giving effect to each portion of the statute” the argument that the L egislature acted 19 “purposefully” in “omitt[ing] the word ‘qualified’ from the Act’s statute of 2037

limitations and that this omission indicates that the [L] egislature intended the 1 statute to apply to all health care providers, regardless of whether the particu lar 2 health care provider chose to become qualified” (citation omitted) ). 3

{ 50 } The dissent contends that judicial interpretation of a statute is “a thin reed 4 upon which to lean in effectuating the legislative intent behind Section 41

- 5

- 12.” 5
Dissent Op. ¶ 6 7 ( quoting State ex rel. State Eng’r v. Lewis , 1996

- NMCA

- 019, ¶ 6 13, 121 N.M. 323, 910 P.2d 957 , as stating that “[w]e must interpret the language 7
of a statute as the [L] egislature understood it at the time it was enacted”). As noted, 8 however, the treatise cited in the dissent teaches that “[t]he most conclusive 9 statutory interpretations come from state court constructions of state statutes” and 10 “[j]udicial construction of a statute becomes part of the legislation from the time of 11
its enactment.” 2B Singer, supra , § 49:4, at 20

- 2 1

. 3 Also worth noting in this 12 regard is the dissent’s statement that “ the L egislature doubtless did not have 13

3 The dissent’s citation to Lewis , 1996

- NMCA

- 019, ¶ 16, in criticizing Appellants’ arguments concerning the fiscal impact of an inte rpretation of Section 41

- 5

- 12 that permits assignment of indemnification claims seems misplaced. Dissent Op. ¶ 65. The L egislature is, of course, the governmental branch with the institutional capacity and competence to assess the fiscal impact of its enac tments. But the statement in Lewis cited by the dissent on this point addresses “the consequences of a legislative policy embodied in an unambiguous statute [

. ] ” Lewis , 1996

- NMCA

- 019, ¶ 16. In this case, the text does not unambiguously answer the question presented. Yet it remains “the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to facilitate and promote the [L] egislature’s accomplishment of its purpose[,]” Helman , 1994

- NMSC

- 023, ¶ 2 5 , and to do so by considering Section 41

- 5

- 12 “in the context of the statute as a whole, including the purposes and consequences of the Act[,]” Bake r , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 1 5.38

Wilschinsky

- type claims in mind when it enacted Section 41

- 5

- 12 in 1976 because 1 these claims were not recognized by our Supreme Court until 1989.” Dissent Op. ¶ 2
67 . Although the observation makes sense as a temporal matter, it undermines the 3 dissent’s insistence on an intended distinction between “patient’s claim” and 4 “malpractice claim” based, in part, on language used in Section 41

- 5

- 3(C)’s 5 definition “indicat[ing] that ‘malpractice claim’ is wide sweeping, encompassing 6
all causes of action against a health care provider based on acts of malpractice that 7 proximately result in injury to the patient.” Dissent Op. ¶ 61. If t he L egislature did 8 intend to distinguish “patient’s claim” from any other claim constituting a 9 “malpractice claim” and to provide different treatment for different types of claims 10 falling within the definition of “malpractice claim,” it was capable of doin g so, as 11 the dissent asserts in its argument concerning the L egislature’s language choices. It 12 seems entirely plausible that the L egislature’s use of “patient’s claim” in Section 13
41

- 5

- 12 represents another instance in which the L egislature was “simply 14 impr ecise with its language.” See Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 30. 15 Arguments Concerning “Legal Reality,” Common Law, and Policy 16

{ 51 } The dissent’s assertions concerning “the legal reality in which the MMA was 17 adopted , ” Dissent Op. ¶ 62, and “the common law when the MMA was enacted , ” 18
Dissent Op. ¶ 66, do not answer the question presented. There is no dispute that 19 “[a]round the time the MMA was enacted, indemnity and contribution claims 2039

certainly were litigated in the medical malpractice c ontext.” Dissent Op. ¶ 62 . Nor 1 is there a dispute concerning the assignability of “choses in action” under the 2
common law. Dissent Op. ¶ 66 . But the question we are charged with answering is 3
what the L egislature intended in enacting the MMA, not what was l itigated in the 4 medical malpractice context when the MMA was enacted or what was

— and is

— 5 allowed under the common law. As the opinion notes, the MMA applies only to 6 claims against qualified health care providers. Section 41

- 5

- 5(C); Roberts , 1992

- 7
NMSC

- 042, ¶ 17 . This means that cases involving allegations of medical 8 malpractice against health care providers not qualified under the MMA will be 9 litigated under the common law , with claims against government actors subject to 10
the limitations and restrictions of t he Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41

- 4

- 1 11

to

- 30 (1976, as amended through 201 5)

. S ee , e.g. , Maestas v. Zager , 2007

- NMSC

12 003, ¶¶ 16

- 18, 141 N.M. 154, 152 P.3d 141. Although the L egislature provided 13 incentives for health care providers to satisfy the requirements necessary for the 14 MMA to apply, there are medical malpractice cases to which the MMA does not 15 apply. There is no dispute that the MMA applies to this case; the question is 16 whether the MMA permits assignment of malpractice claims not held by a 17 “patient” at the time of assignment. 18

{ 52 } The dissent states that “the m ajority assumes that the non

- assignability 19 provision is a benefit that inures to health care providers” and that it is “a false 2040

premise that the non

- assignability provision is a restriction” because “the non

1 assignability provision has not been identified by our courts as a benefit to health 2 care providers” and “this provision seems designed not to benefit health care 3 providers but to protect patients.” Dissent Op. ¶ 64 . Section 41

- 5

- 12 plainly reads 4 as a restriction or limitation. Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that the 5
MMA confers no “benefits” other than those mentioned in Baker . Furthermore, 6 even if the common law’s proscription against assignment of personal injury 7 claims is meant to benefit plaintiffs in cases litigated under the common la w, this 8 does not require the conclusion that the L egislature did not intend Section 41

- 5

- 12 9 to benefit health care providers in cases to which the MMA applies. See Roberts , 10
1992

- NMSC

- 042, ¶ 14 (disagreeing that in “arguably” codifying a common law 11
rule in the MMA, “the [L] egislature did not intend to confer a ‘benefit’ on 12 qualified health care providers [ , ] ” explaining that the argument erroneously 13
assumes that “the [L] egislature mechanistically enacted the common law and, thus, 14 did not confer a benefit on q ualified health care providers” when “it is equally 15 plausible that the [L] egislature, in response to the perceived medical malpractice 16 crisis, chose the time of the negligent act rule specifically to confer its benefit on 17 qualified health care providers”). 18

{ 53 } We are aware of the principles cited by the dissent concerning interpretation 19 of statutes against the background of the common law. As the opinion notes, 2041

however, we also presume that the L egislature enacted the MMA to change , not to 1 codify, the exis ting law. See Johnson , 1989

- NMSC

- 045, ¶ 4; Bird , 1977

- NMSC

2 110, ¶ 12; cf. Cahn , 2018

- NMSC

- 002, ¶¶ 24

- 25. An interpretation of the MMA 3 that incorporates everything allowed under the common law unless expressly 4 prohibited seems incompatible with a scheme clearly intended to limit common

5 law rights, recoveries, and the costs of health care in New Mexico. See , e.g. , 6
Roberts , 1992

- NMSC

- 042, ¶ 15 (“ [T] he Act established new procedural and 7 substantive restrictions on malpractice liability

. ” (internal quotation marks 8 omitted) ) ; Wilschinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶ 21 ( stating that the MMA was enact ed 9 to address a perceived medical malpractice crisis in New Mexico by “providing a 10 framework for tort liability with which the insurance industry could operate [ , ] ” one 11 that “restrict[s] and limit[s the ] plaintiffs’ rights under the common law” through 12
“sev eral procedural measures and by establishing a limitation on full recovery for 13 malpractice injury”); see also Salopek v. Friedman , 2013

- NMCA

- 087, ¶¶ 50

- 58, 14 308 P.3d 139 (discussing some differences between medical malpractice claims 15
under the MMA and unde r the common law). It is also at odds with the conclusion 16
of Duarte

- Afara , reached “in part, so as to carry out the policy goals the 17 Legislature intended by enacting the MMA” that an indemnification claim is 18 subject to the MMA’s restrictions and limitation s, notwithstanding its “separate 19 and distinct” identity under the common law. 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶¶ 16, 18 . Such an 2042

interpretation seems especially unwarranted given that medical malpractice cases 1 to which the MMA does not apply will be litigated under the com mon law. 2

{ 54 } The dissent’s comments that “the approach taken by our Court today appears 3 to stand alone” and “no published opinions . . . forbid such assignment , ” Dissent 4 Op. ¶ 69, carry no significance. Our task is to interpret the MMA, and not one of 5 the cases cited as supporting the conclusion reached in the dissent (none of which 6 were cited by Leger) involves the MMA or even another state’s statute with the 7 same language and goa ls. As for the policy considerations discussed in the 8
dissent’s cited cases , Dissent Op. ¶ 69 , the policies relevant here are the policies 9
the L egislature intended to implement and serve in enacting the MMA. Safeway, 10 Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain SS S , 2016

- NMSC

- 009, ¶ 38, 368 P.3d 389; 11
Torres v. State , 1995

- NMSC

- 025, ¶ 10, 119 N.M. 609, 894 P.2d 386 (“ [I] t is the 12 particular domain of the [L] egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public 13 policy

. ”). The dissent offers no reason why the policies discussed in the cases 14
cited

— favoring “free alienability of property interests,” settlement, and windfalls 15 benefitting plaintiffs

— should control the MMA’s interpretation. See Dissent Op. ¶ 16
68. There is also no reason to presume that the L egislature intended the MMA to 17 serve the policies invoked in the dissent regardless of potential consequences. For 18 example, would an interpretation of the MMA based on a policy of “free 19 alienability of property interests” allow Leger to re

- assign the indemnification 2043

claim he obtained from PHS based on the reasoning that, having undergone a 1 process of transmutation in the manner effected in this case, the claim is not a 2 “patient’s claim”? Could that re

- assigned claim be litigated many years beyond the 3
MMA’s statute of repose based on the reasoning that PHS complied with the 4 MMA’s presentation requirements before asserting the indemnification claim in 5
court? Or would re

- assignment be barred because the holder of the claim at the 6
moment of re

- assignment was a “natural per son”? 7

{ 55 } Again, we do not suggest that the opinion’s interpretation of the 8

L egislature’s intent in enacting Section 41

- 5

- 12 is free from doubt

— it cannot be, 9 given that the plain text does not unambiguously answer the question. Cummings , 10
1996

- NMSC

- 035, ¶ 45 (“It is rare, if not impossible, for any language

— statutory 11
or otherwise

—

to be utterly free from ambiguity.”). We believe, however, that our 12 reading of this provision in the context of the MMA as a whole best comports with 13 the principles of statutory co nstruction stated and applied in prior precedents, most 14 especially in those precedents interpreting the MMA in other contexts. 15
CONCLUSION 16

{ 56 } We reverse the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to dismiss at 17 issue in this appeal ( m otion to d ismiss f iled by Appellants on g rounds that 18
i ndemnity c laim is n ot a ssignable and that c laim is b arred by the s tatute of r epose) 1944

and remand with instructions that Leger’s indemnification action be dismissed with 1 prejudice. 2

{ 57 } IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

__________ _______________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 5
I CONCUR: 6

_________________________________ 7 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 8

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge (dissenting)
. 945

ATTREP, Judge (dissenting)
. 1

{ 58 } Because I believe we can and should give effect to the Legislature’s choice 2 of the words “patient’s claim” in Section 41

- 5

- 12, I conclude that the assignment 3
of the e quitable indemnification claim 4 to Leger is not barred by the MMA. The 4

m ajority having concluded to the contrary, I respectfully dissent. 5

{ 59 } The issue here is whether the Legislature intended to differentiate between 6 “malpractice claims” and “patient’s claims” in the MMA such that the use of the 7
latter term in Section 41

- 5

- 12 (the non

- assignability provision) was meant to 8 restrict the assigna bility of only certain types of malpractice claims

— namely, 9 “patient’s claims.” Asserting ambiguity in the Act, the m ajority relies heavily on 10 general principles derived from Wilschinsky , Duarte

- Afara , and Baker in 11 determining equivalence between “patient’s claim” and “malpractice claim” and in 12 determining that, notwithstanding language to the contrary, the Legislature meant 13
for the non

- assignability provision to apply to all malpractice claims. Majority Op. 14 ¶¶ 26

- 32 , 39

- 40. I think it crucial to closely exa mine the words in the Act before 15 depending on broad generalizations derived from the judiciary’s added gloss in 16

4 As noted at oral argument and reflected in the s econd a mended t hird

- p arty c omplaint for i ndemnification or c ontribution , the claim at issue on appeal may actually be a contribution claim, not an indemnity claim. Because this distinction does not affect my analysis and because the parties in their briefing and the
m ajority in its o pinion refer to Leger’s claim as an indemnification claim, I do the
same.46

construing the MMA. This best ensures that we “interpret the language of a statute 1 as the [L]egislature understood it at the time it was enacted .” Lewis , 1996

- NMCA

2 019, ¶ 13. In doing so, I conclude the words selected by the Legislature require a 3
different result than the m ajority. And it is incumbent upon this Court to give such 4 words effect, as they are the “primary indicator of legislative inte nt [,] ” if doing so 5 does not result in “injustice, absurdity or contradiction [

. ] ” Baker , 2013

- NMSC

6 043, ¶ 11 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see id. ¶ ¶ 1, 13 7 (undertaking fulsome textual analysis and disagreeing with this Court’s conclusion 8 that the text of the MMA literally excluded certain entities from the definition of 9 “health care provider”). 10

{ 60 } Turning to the statutory language in the Act, the non
- assignability provision 11 provides: “A patient’s claim for compensation under the [MMA] is not 12 assignable.” Section 41

- 5

- 12. “Patient’s claim” or “patient’s claim for 13 compensation” is not a defined term in the MMA, but “patient” is defined as “a 14
natural person who received or should have received health care from a licensed 15 health care provider, under a contract, express or implied [

. ] ” Section 41

- 5

- 3(E). To 16 determine the meaning of “patient’s claim,” I look to the ordinary meaning of the 17
word “claim.” See State v. Ogden , 1994

- NMSC

- 029, ¶ 24, 118 N.M. 234, 880 P.2d 18 845 (“The words of a statute, including terms not statutorily defined, should be 19 given their ordinary meaning absent clear and express legislative intention to the 2047

contrary.”). A “claim” is “[a]n interest or remedy recognized at law; the means by 1 which a person can obtain a privilege, possession, or enjoyment of a right or thing; 2
cause of action.” Black’s Law Dictionary 302 (10th ed. 2014). Thus, a “patient’s 3 claim” is a natural person’s cause of action under the MMA, arising from the 4 health care that person received or should have received from a health care 5 provider. 6

{ 61 } Turning next to the definition of “malpractice claim,” the m ajority’s 7 equivalence argument breaks down. Under the MMA, “ ‘malp ractice claim’ 8
includes any cause of action arising in this state against a health care provider for 9 medical treatment, lack of medical treatment or other claimed departure from 10 accepted standards of health care which proximately results in injury to the p atient, 11 whether the patient’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract, and 12 includes but is not limited to actions based on battery or wrongful death[.]” Section 13
41

- 5

- 3(C) (emphasis added). The use of the words “includes” and “any” at the 14 beginn ing of the definition indicates that “malpractice claim” is wide sweeping, 15 encompassing all causes of action against a health care provider based on acts of 16 malpractice that proximately result in injury to the patient. Cf. State v. Strauch , 17
2015

- NMSC

- 009, ¶ 37, 345 P.3d 317 (noting that “the word ‘includes’ implies an 18 incomplete listing” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Mueller v. 19 Sample , 2004

- NMCA

- 075, ¶ 16, 135 N.M. 748, 93 P.3d 769 (reading “any cause 2048

of action or suit” to include claims filed both by the plaintiff and the defendant 1 even though contractual term referred only to the defendant) ; Merriam

- Webster 2 Dictionary , http://www.merriam

- webster.com/dictionary/any (last visited on Oct. 3 28, 2018) (defining “any” to mean, among other things, “one, some, or all 4 indiscriminately of whatever quantity . . . all”) . The reference to “patient’s claim” 5 within the definition of “malpractice claim” does not, in my opinio n, render the 6 terms equivalent. Reading the definition in this way would ren der many of its 7 words superfluous. See Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 24 (“ [ T ] he Legislature is 8 presumed not to have used any surplus words in a statute; each word is to be given 9 meaning[,]” and we “must interpret a statute so as to avoid rendering the 10 Legislatur e’s language superfluous.” (alteration, internal quotation marks , and 11 citation omitted)). 12

{ 62 } Appellants’ related assertion at oral argument that it was “inconceivable” 13 that the Legislature had anything other than “patient’s claims” in mind when the 14
MMA was enacted is not only contrary to the language in the Act, but also is 15 contrary to the legal reality in which the MMA was adopted. See State ex rel

. King 16 v. B & B Inv. Grp. , 2014

- NMSC

- 024, ¶ 38, 329 P.3d 658 ( stating that the appellate 17

courts operate “un der the presumption that the [L]egislature acted with full 18 knowledge of relevant statutory and common law and did not intend to enact a law 19 inconsistent with existing law” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation 2049

omitted)). Around the time the MMA was enacted, indemnity and contribution 1 claims certainly were litigated in the medical malpractice context. See Uniform 2 Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act , NMSA 1978, §§ 41

- 3

- 1 to

- 8 (1947, as 3 amended through 1987); Dessauer v. Mem’l Gen. Hosp. , 1981

- N MCA

- 051, ¶ 1, 96 4 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337 (contribution/indemnity suit brought by hospital and nurse 5 against doctor); Goffe v. Pharmaseal Labs., Inc. , 1976

- NMCA

- 123, ¶ 14, 90 N.M. 6 764, 568 P.2d 600 (mentioning cross

- claim against doctor and hospital) , aff’d in 7 part, rev’d in part , 1977

- NMSC

- 071, 90 N.M. 753, 568 P.2d 589 . In simple terms, 8 such claims involve causes of action between or among health care providers based 9 on acts of malpractice that resulted in injury to a patient

— that is, they are 10 “malpractice claims” within the meaning of the MMA. 5 See Dessauer , 1981

- 11
NMCA

- 051, ¶¶ 26

- 29 (stating that in order to hold doctor liable for contribution, 12 doctor must be determined negligent and to hold doctor liable for indemnity, 13 doctor must be vicariously liable for nurse’s negligence); see also Caglioti v. Dist. 14 Hosp. Partners, Lp , 933 A.2d 800, 816 (D.C. 2007) (equating equitable indemnity 15

5 Our holding in Duarte

- Afara made it clear that equitable indemnification claims fall under the ambit of the MMA and are “malpractice claims.” 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 15. This conclusion was reached, in part, by resort to Wilschinsky

. Duarte

- Afara , 2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 15. While I believe it wa s unnecessary for our Court to go much beyond the statutory language of the MMA in reaching this conclusion, the outcome of Duarte

- Afara is sound. Our decision in Duarte

- Afara does not however, as Appellants imply, mean that the Legislature could not have had in mind such claims when drafting the MMA.50

claim to malpractice claim and providing that, to recover, indemnitee “would have 1 the burden of proving the applicable standard of care, a deviation from that 2 standard and a causal relationship between the deviation and the injury”) ; Faden v. 3
Robbins , 450 N.Y.S.2d 238, 23 9 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) (“To be entitled to 4
contribution from the third

- party defendants, [ the doctor] will have to establish that 5
what the third

- party defendants did or failed to do in their treatment of [the] 6 plaintiff constituted a departure from the applicable standards of medical skill and 7 care.” (alteration , internal quotation marks , and citat ion omitted))

. 8

{ 63 } And perhaps it too simple a point to make, but the Legislature clearly was 9 capable of using the term “malpractice claim” in the MMA when it chose to do so. 10 Other than defining “malpractice claim,” the Legislature used that term sixteen 11
times in the MMA. See §§ 41

- 5

- 3 (C) , - 4,

- 5 (C) , - 6 (C) , - 7 (A) , - 8,

- 14 (A) , - 17 (H) , - 12 21,

- 22,

- 23,

- 25 (A) . Had the Legislature intended that all malpractice claims be 13

non
- assignable, it could have used the term “malpractice claim” in Section 41

- 5

- 14
12. See State v. Greenwood , 2012

- NMCA

- 017, ¶ 38, 271 P.3d 753 (“The 15 Legislature knows how to include language in a statute if it so desires.” (alteration, 16 internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). It did not. Given that the language 17 of the MMA supports a d istinction between “patient’s claims” and “malpractice 18 claims,” I think we ought to give effect to the Legislature’s choice of words

— 1951

namely, that the non

- assignability provision applies to “patient’s claims” and not to 1
all “malpractice claims” as the m ajor ity concludes. 2

{ 64 } Giving effect to the specific language in the non

- assignability provision is 3 not inconsistent with the legislative intent behind the MMA, nor would it lead to an 4
absurd or unreasonable result. State v. Marshall , 2004

- NMCA

- 104, ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 5 240, 96 P.3d 801 (“In construing the statute, our primary goal is to give effect to 6 the intent of the Legislature. We do this by giving effect to the plain meaning of 7 the words of statute, unless this leads to an absurd or unreasonable result.” (cita tion 8 omitted)). The stated purpose of the MMA is “to promote the health and welfare of 9 the people of New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance for 10 health care providers in New Mexico.” Section 41

- 5

- 2. The m ajority posits that it 11
“can discern no reason why the L egislature would intend to subject 12 indemnification claims to every MMA restriction except one”

— the non

13 assignability provision. Majority Op. ¶ 40. In making this contention, the m ajority 14
assumes that the non

- assignability provisi on is a benefit that inures to health care 15 providers. Unlike the other “restrictions” in the MMA

— such as the damages cap, 16
Section 41

- 5

- 6, and statute of repose, Section 41

- 5

- 13

— the non

- assignability 17 provision has not been identified by our courts as a bene fit to health care providers. 18
See Baker , 2013

- NMSC

- 043, ¶ 18 (listing benefits in the Act to health care 19 providers). And, indeed, this provision seems designed not to benefit health care 2052

providers but to protect patients. See Quality Chiropractic, PC v. Fa rmers Ins. Co. 1 of Ariz

. , 2002

- NMCA

- 080, ¶ 10, 132 N.M. 518, 51 P.3d 1172 (“The main concern 2 . . . was that assignment of personal injury claims would lead to unscrupulous 3 trafficking in litigation as a commodity.”); see also Kimball Int’l, Inc. v. Northfie ld 4
Metal Prod

s
. , 760 A.2d 794, 803 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (“The 5 prohibition against the assignment of tort claims is designed to protect the interests 6 of injured persons, not alleged tortfeasors who may have claims against other 7 alleged tortfeaso rs.”). As such, I think it a false premise that the non

- assignability 8 provision is a restriction

— or benefit to health care providers

— that should apply 9 equally to all malpractice claims. 10

{ 65 } Appellants’ legislative intent argument also is unavailing. While Appellants 11 speculate that permitting the assignment of indemnity claims runs contrary to the 12 legislative intent of the MMA because assignment will make it more likely for 13 these claims to be litigated and, thereby, drive up the costs of insuring healt h care 14 providers, the opposite may also be true. It seems just as likely that the overall 15 effect of limiting the assignability of indemnity claims may make settlements more 16
difficult to obtain

—

resulting in lengthier and more expensive litigation, thereby 17
d riving up the costs of insuring health care providers. See Bush v. Super

. C t. of 18 Sacramento Cty. , 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382, 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (“Sanctioning the 19 assignment of [equitable indemnification] chose in action to the tort plaintiff 2053

fosters settl ement with the tortfeasor most willing to settle.”); Caglioti , 933 A.2d at 1 816 (“Although in this instance the assignment of the equitable indemnity claim 2 perhaps has prolonged the litigation, in other instances the assignment could 3 provide an additional m eans of settling the underlying case.”); Rubenstein v. Royal 4 Ins. Co. of Am. , 696 N.E.2d 973, 975 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998) (“[A]n assignment of 5 the right of contribution encourages settlement.”); cf. Gonzales v. Atnip , 1984

- 6
NMCA

- 128, ¶ 1, 102 N.M. 194, 692 P.2d 1343 (“The historical and current public 7 policy of this state is to favor the settlement of disputed claims[, including] . . . the 8 settlement of lawsuits.” (citation omitted)). Frankly, this fiscal impact analys is is 9 beyond the expertise of the judiciary and should be left for the Legislature to 10 examine and make appropriate changes to the MMA if need be. See Lewis , 1996

- 11
NMCA

- 019, ¶ 16 (leaving for the Legislature to address “potential problems 12 created by our stat utory interpretation” of clear and unambiguous provision). 13

{ 66 } There also is no inherent absurdity in the Legislature prohibiting 14 assignments of “patient’s claims” with no corresponding prohibition against the 15 indemnity claim at issue in this case. Sectio n 41

- 5

- 12 was in line with the common 16
law when the MMA was enacted. Cf. San Juan Agr ic . Water Users Ass’n v. 17

KNME

- TV

, 2011

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 20, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884 (“When [the 18 courts] interprets statutes, we do so against a background of common

- law 19 princi ples.”). At the time of enactment, it was long established that, as a general 2054

principle, “choses in action are assignable,” the pertinent exception being personal 1 injury claims. Parker v. Beasley , 1936

- NMSC

- 004, ¶ 10, 40 N.M. 68, 54 P.2d 687; 2

see Quality C hiropractic , 2002

- NMCA

- 080, ¶ 8 (stating that “[p]ersonal injury 3 claims . . . remained unassignable” even when assignment of other claims was 4 permitted over time); 6A C.J.S. Assignments § 42 (2016) (“[A] chose in action, 5 whether arising in tort or contract , is generally assignable, since a chose in action 6 constitutes personal property.” (footnote omitted)); see also Emp ’rs Fire Ins. Co. v. 7
Welch , 1967

- NMSC

- 248, ¶ 5, 78 N.M. 494, 433 P.2d 79 (mentioning assignment 8 of an indemnity claim). Under these principles, a patient’s claim, which is a 9 personal injury claim, would not be assignable, but an indemnity claim, which 10 remains distinct from the underlying tort, would be assignable. See Duarte

- Afara , 11
2011

- NMCA

- 112, ¶ 18. T he MMA as written m aintains this common law 12
distinction. See San Juan Agr ic . Water Users Ass’n , 2011

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 20 (“We 13 presume that the Legislature enacts statutes that are consistent with the common 14 law and that the common law applies unless it is clearly abrogated.”). 15

{ 67 } To support its construction of the Act, the m ajority relies on an 16
“unreasonable classification”

— i.e., that if Section 41

- 5

- 12 is applied only to 17 “patient’s claims,” then Wilschinsky

- type claims (which are personal injury claims) 18 would be assignable while patient’s claims would not. Majority Op. ¶ ¶ 39

- 40

. But 19 the Legislature doubtless did not have Wilschinsky

- type claims in mind when it 2055

enacted Section 41

- 5

- 12 in 1976 because these claims were not recognized by our 1 Supreme Court until 1989. See Wilschinsky , 1989

- NMSC

- 047, ¶¶ 5

- 17. The 2 assignment of such personal injur y claims would be barred at common law, and 3 there is no countervailing legislative intent in Section 41

- 5

- 12 to abrogate this 4 principle. See San Juan Agr ic . Water Users Ass’n , 2011

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 20 ( “A 5 statute will be interpreted as supplanting the common law only if there is an 6 explicit indication that the [L ] egislature so intended.” (internal quotation marks 7 and citation omitted) ). Regardless, the m ajority’s “unreasonable classification,” 8 having been created by the judiciary, seems like a thin reed upon which to lean in 9 effectuating the legislative intent behind Section 41

- 5

- 12. Cf. Lewis , 1996

- NMCA

10 019, ¶ 13 (“We must interpret the language of a statute as the [L] egislature 11 understood it at the time it was enacted.”). 12

{ 68 } It is worth highlighting that the m ajority o pinion entirely eliminates the right 13 to assign any and all malpractice claims falling within the MMA. Before brushing 14 aside the free alienability of property interests, I think we ought to require a clearer 15 expression of legislative intent than what we hav e here. See San Juan Agr ic . Water 16
Users Ass’n , 2011

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 20 ; 2B Singer, supra , § 50:1, at 149

- 51 (“Absent 17 an indication that a legislature intends a statute to supplant common law, courts 18 should not give it that effect.”); see also State ex rel. Bingaman v. Valley Sav. & 19
Loan Ass’n , 1981

- NMSC

- 108, ¶ 13, 97 N.M. 8, 636 P.2d 279 (“At common law, 2056

restraints on alienation were prohibited.”); cf. Espinosa v. United of Omaha Life 1
Ins. Co. , 2006

- NMCA

- 075, ¶ 27, 139 N.M. 691, 137 P.3d 631 (noting that “an ti

2 assignment clauses are generally disfavored”). 3

{ 69 } Finally, the approach taken by our Court today appears to stand alone. Of the 4 few courts that have specifically examined the assignability of indemnity and 5 contribution claims to the original plaintiff in the medical malpractice context, I 6 have found no published opinions that forbid such assignment. See , e.g. , Bush , 13 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 384

- 90 (permitting assignment of indemnity or contribution claims 8 against medical providers to original plaintiff, noting strong preference for 9 assignability, and rejecting double recovery arguments); Caglioti , 933 A.2d at 807

- 10
17 (same); Robarts v. Diaco , 581 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) 11 (same); cf. Kimball Int’l , 760 A.2d at 803 (permitting assignment of 12
indemnification claim to the plaintiff in products liability case). These courts 13 address similar concerns raised by the m ajority regarding the potential for 14 manipulation of claims by a plaintiff in order to obtai n double recovery. The courts 15 conclude that the possibility of a recovery in excess of tort damages does not bar 16 assignment of an indemnification claim because, as a matter of policy, a windfall, 17 if any, should benefit the injured plaintiff rather than a t ortfeasor. See Bush , 13 Cal. 18 Rptr. 2d at 390 ; Caglioti , 933 A.2d at 814

- 15; Robarts , 581 So. 2d at 915. These 19 policy considerations counsel in favor of permitting the assignment in this case, 2057

particularly in light of the fact that, because the amount of Pl aintiffs’ damages and 1 the settlement amount are not of record, it is unclear that Plaintiffs will obtain full 2 recovery if the assignment of the indemnity claim is disallowed. 3

{ 70 } For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the district court’s denial of 4 Appellants’ motion to dismiss. 6 5

_________________________________ 6 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 7

6 I have limited my analysis to the issue addressed by the m ajority o pinion and do not address the additional arguments raised by the Appellants, including the assignability of the indemnity claim under the co mmon law and Leger’s compliance with Sections 41

- 5

- 13 and

- 15.