The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim shall be tolled upon submission of the case for the consideration of the panel and shall not commence to run again until thirty days after the panel's final decision is entered in the permanent files of the commission and a copy is served upon the claimant and his attorney by certified mail.

History: 1953 Comp., § 58-33-22, enacted by Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 22.

Emergency clauses. — Laws 1976, ch. 2, § 32 contained an emergency clause and was approved February 27, 1976.

Amended application adding a new party does not relate back to the original filing date. — The filing of an application with the medical review commission as to one provider does not toll the limitations period as to another provider who was not named in the original application and for whom the statutory period in which to file a cause of action has passed. Meza v. Topalovski, 2012-NMCA-002, 268 P.3d 1284.

Where plaintiff wrongly named a health care provider in an application before the medical review commission; plaintiff amended the application to name the correct health care provider; and the amended application to add the correct health care provider was filed more than three years after the date of the alleged malpractice by the correct health care provider, the original application did not toll the statute of limitations for the untimely application filed against the originally unnamed health care provider. Meza v. Topalovski, 2012-NMCA-002, 268 P.3d 1284.

Mailing decision to claimant's attorney suffices. — Mailing of the final decision of the medical review commission to a claimant in care of claimant's attorney is sufficient service for the purpose of determining recommencement of the limitation period relating to medical malpractice actions. Saiz v. Barham, 1983-NMCA-132, 100 N.M. 596, 673 P.2d 1329, cert. denied, 100 N.M. 689, 675 P.2d 421.

Claim submitted as of date of mailing. — A claim is considered to have been submitted to the medical review commission as of the date that the application for the claim is mailed to the commission. Otero v. Zouhar, 1985-NMSC-021, 102 N.M. 482, 697 P.2d 482, overruled on other grounds by Grantland v. Lea Reg'l Hosp., 1990-NMSC-076, 110 N.M. 378, 796 P.2d 599.

Negligence prior to effective date of act. — This section does not apply to toll the running of the general limitation period for a personal injury claim [37-1-8 NMSA 1978], where the act of malpractice has occurred prior to the effective date of the Medical Malpractice Act, February 27, 1976 [Chapter 41, Article 5 NMSA 1978]. Loesch v. Henderson, 1985-NMCA-104, 103 N.M. 554, 710 P.2d 748.

Law reviews. — For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77).

For comment on access to the courts and the Medical Malpractice Act: Jiron v. Mahlab, see 14 N.M.L. Rev. 503 (1984).

For survey of medical malpractice law in New Mexico, see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 469 (1988).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — When statute of limitations begins to run in dental malpractice suits, 3 A.L.R.4th 318.