Opinion ID: 779713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the $600,000 recovery cap applies only to health care providers.

Text: 17 As noted above, the definition of health care provider does not include nurses (except for nurse anesthetists, which the nurse here undisputedly was not) or hospital administrators. On this basis, the district court concluded that the recovery cap did not apply in the present case. The Government argues, however, that the $600,000 cap is not limited to actions against health care providers, but instead applies to all malpractice defendants. By its terms, the Government argues, section 41-5-6(A) limits how much all persons may recover for or arising from any injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice. Only section 41-5-6(D)'s $200,000 cap on personal liability refers expressly to health care providers. The New Mexico courts have not ruled on whether the recovery cap applies to all malpractice actions or only those brought against health care providers, so we must predict how they would resolve the issue. 18 The Government's argument assumes that the phrase amount ... for or arising from any injury or death to a patient as a result of malpractice, § 41-5-6(A), has a meaning distinct from malpractice claim, which is defined in relevant part by the Act to include[] any cause of action ... against a health care provider for ... lack of medical treatment. N.M. Stat. § 41-5-3(C) (emphasis added). We need not decide this question because of our conclusion in the next section that the United States is a qualified health care provider for purposes of this suit. 19