April 18, 2022- Diane Garrity v. Christopher Driskill, M.D., No. A-1-CA-38569

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
Opinion Number:	2
Filing Date: April 18, 2022	3
No. A-1-CA-38569	4
DIANE GARRITY, as Court-Appointed	5
Guardian Ad Litem for ABRAHAM RIDER,	6
a minor,	7
Plaintiff,	8
and	9
CHRISTOPHER RIDER and YOLANDA	10
RIDER, Husband and Wife, individually,	11
Plaintiffs-Appellants,	12
v.	13
CHRISTOPHER DRISKILL, M.D. and	14
LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LLC	15
d/b/a LEA REGIONAL MEDICAL	16
CENTER,	17
Defendants-Appellees.	18
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY	19
Francis J. Mathew, District Judge	20
The Hemphill Firm, P.C.	21
Linda G. Hemphill	22
Leigh Messerer	23
Emma D. B. Weber	24
Santa Fe, NM	25
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 4/18/2022 9:23 AM

Rothstein Donatelli LLP	1
Alicia C. Lopez	2
Albuquerque, NM	3
for Appellants	4
Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin	5
Lee M. Rogers Jr.	6
Carla Neusch Williams	7
Quincy J. Perales	8
Roswell, NM	9
Lorenz Law	10
Alice T. Lorenz	11
Albuquerque, NM	12
for Appellee Christopher Driskill, M.D.	13
Serpe, Jones, Andrews, Callender & Bell, PLLC	14
Randall Jones	15
Kelsey A. Leiper	16
Houston, TX	17
for Appellee Lea Regional Hospital, LLC d/b/a/ Regional Medical Center	18

OPINION	1
BOGARDUS, Judge.	2
{1} 	Christopher and Yolanda Rider (Parents) appeal the district court’s order	3
dismissing as time-barred their claim for loss of consortium arising from injuries	4
sustained by their minor child (Child) due to alleged medical malpractice. We	5
conclude that because Parents’ claim was filed within the time period prescribed for	6
filing Child’s medical malpractice claim, Parents’ claim was timely. Accordingly,	7
we reverse.	8
BACKGROUND	9
{2} 	The background to our analysis is comprised of the well-pled facts in the	10
complaint, which we accept as truthful for purposes of reviewing the district court’s	11
ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thompson v. City of Albuquerque, 2017-	12
NMSC-021, ¶ 2, 397 P.3d 1279. On September 6, 2013, Child sustained injuries	13
during the course of his birth and delivery at Lea Regional Medical Center (LRMC).	14
As a result of allegedly negligent medical care provided by Child’s doctor,	15
Christopher Driskill, Child suffered a brachial plexus injury to his shoulder causing	16
scapular winging, weakness, and difficulty with arm positioning as well as additional	17
injury resulting in developmental delays, including learning disabilities and speech	18
defects.	19

2
{3} 	Approximately five years later, on October 29, 2018, Child’s guardian ad	1
litem and Parents (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a complaint, asserting various	2
claims. Child’s guardian ad litem brought several claims, including claims for	3
negligent medical care against Dr. Driskill, his employer, Premier OBGYN, LLC	4
(Premier), 1 and LRMC (collectively, Defendants). Parents’ sole claim in the	5
complaint was for loss of consortium against all Defendants.	6
{4} 	The district court granted Defendants’ Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA motion to	7
dismiss Parents’ loss of consortium claim, concluding Parents brought their claim	8
outside the three-year limitations period under both the Medical Malpractice Act’s	9
(MMA) statute of repose, NMSA 1978, § 41-5-13 (1976, amended 2021),2 and the	10
general statute of limitations for personal injuries, NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 (1976).	11
Parents appeal.	12
DISCUSSION	13
I. 	Standard of Review	14
{5} 	We review the dismissal of Parents’ claim for loss of consortium damages	15
under Rule 1-012(B)(6) de novo. See Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup	16
1Premier is no longer a party to this appeal. Upon stipulation of the parties and
upon agreement that Premier be dismissed as a party in the district court, this Court
dismissed Premier from this appeal.
2 The Legislature approved multiple amendments to the MMA in the 2021
legislative session, which took effect January 1, 2022. See NMSA 1978, §§ 41-5-1
to -29 (1976, as amended through 2021). All citations in this opinion to the MMA
or any of its provisions refer to the MMA as it existed before 2022.

3
Police Dep’t, 2003-NMCA-125, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 492, 79 P.3d 836 (noting whether a	1
motion to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6) was properly granted is a question of law).	2
To address Parents’ loss of consortium claim, we must construe Section 37-1-8,	3
NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-10 (1975), and Section 41-5-13 as they apply to the facts	4
of this case. We review such matters de novo. See Bd. of Comm’rs of Rio Arriba	5
Cnty. v. Greacen, 2000-NMSC-016, ¶ 4, 129 N.M. 177, 3 P.3d 672 (“This is	6
primarily a matter of statutory construction and thereby concerns a pure question of	7
law, subject to de novo review.”); Ponder v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2000-	8
NMSC-033, ¶ 7, 129 N.M. 698, 12 P.3d 960 (“We review de novo the [district]	9
court’s application of the law to the facts in arriving at its legal conclusions.”).	10
II. 	Statutes at Issue	11
{6} 	Because Parents brought their loss of consortium claim against both qualified	12
and nonqualified health care providers, two separate statutes are at issue on appeal:	13
the MMA’s statute of repose, Section 41-5-13, and the general statute of limitations	14
for personal injuries, Sections 37-1-8 and 37-1-10. Defendant Driskill is a qualified	15
health care provider pursuant to Section 41-5-5(C) of the MMA and is therefore	16
entitled to the MMA’s benefits. See id. (defining the qualifications needed for health	17
care providers to qualify under the MMA and explaining that health care providers	18
that do not meet the qualifications under that “section shall not have the benefit of	19
any of the provisions of the [MMA] in the event of . . . malpractice claim[s] against	20

4
[them]”). As a result, Section 41-5-13 is controlling as to whether Parents’ loss of	1
consortium claim against Defendant Driskill was timely filed. See Moncor Tr. Co.	2
ex rel. Flynn v. Feil, 1987-NMCA-015, ¶ 6, 105 N.M. 444, 733 P.2d 1327 (“Under	3
the [MMA] . . . Section 41-5-13 is controlling as to whether an action grounded upon	4
a claim of medical malpractice has been timely filed.”). Section 41-5-13 provides,	5
in relevant part:	6
No claim for malpractice arising out of an act of malpractice . . .	7
may be brought against a health care provider unless filed within three	8
years after the date that the act of malpractice occurred except that a	9
minor under the full age of six years shall have until his ninth birthday	10
in which to file.	11
(Emphases added.)	12
{7} 	As for Parents’ claim against Defendant LRMC, which is not a health care	13
provider as defined in the MMA, the parties agree that Sections 37-1-8 and -10	14
control whether Parents’ loss of consortium claim was timely filed. Section 37-1-8	15
provides in relevant part that “[a]ctions must be brought . . . for an injury to the	16
person . . . within three years,” but Section 37-1-10 provides an exception allowing	17
a minor one year from his or her eighteenth birthday within which to sue. See Gomez	18
v. Chavarria, 2009-NMCA-035, ¶ 7, 146 N.M. 46, 206 P.3d 157. We refer to the	19
exceptions for minors provided by Sections 41-5-13 and 37-1-10 as “minority tolling	20
provisions.” See Maestas v. Zager, 2005-NMCA-013, ¶ 22, 136 N.M. 764, 105 P.3d	21

5
317 (referring to the Tort Claims Act’s minority tolling provision), rev’d on other	1
grounds, 2007-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 141 N.M. 154, 152 P.3d 141.	2
{8} 	It is undisputed that Parents brought their loss of consortium claim outside the	3
general three-year limitations period provided by Sections 41-5-13 and 37-1-8, but	4
during Child’s minority as defined in both minority tolling provisions at issue. Thus,	5
the sole issue on appeal is whether a parent’s claim for loss of consortium in a	6
medical malpractice case is tolled alongside the minor’s claim from which it is	7
derived, pursuant to the minority tolling provisions of Sections 41-5-13 and 37-1-	8
10.	9
III. 	The Parties’ Arguments	10
{9} 	Defendants argue that a parent’s claim for loss of consortium should not be so	11
tolled. They contend the plain language of the minority tolling provisions at issue	12
provides no exception to the general three-year limitations period for a parent’s loss	13
of consortium claim. Defendants urge us to apply the principle of strictly construing	14
exceptions to limitations periods and follow our precedent applying this principle.	15
Defendants also argue that, because loss of consortium claims are independent	16
actions, they can be brought separately from the underlying injury claim.	17
{10} 	Parents argue the minority tolling provisions’ silence as to their applicability	18
to loss of consortium claims makes the statutes ambiguous since loss of consortium	19
claims did not exist when the tolling provisions were enacted. Likewise, Parents	20

6
contend the cases upon which Defendants rely to support a strict construction of the	1
minority tolling provisions at issue are of limited value because loss of consortium	2
claims did not exist when those cases were decided. Parents argue that in light of	3
later-developed loss of consortium precedent, refusing to extend the minority tolling	4
provisions at issue to a parent’s loss of consortium claim would lead to illogical	5
results 	and 	frustrate 	public 	policies 	favoring 	judicial 	economy 	and 	avoiding	6
piecemeal litigation.	7
{11} 	For the reasons we discuss, we conclude that a parent’s claim for loss of	8
consortium in a medical malpractice case is tolled alongside the minor’s claim from	9
which it is derived when such claims are brought in the same cause of action.	10
Because our conclusion applies to the minority tolling provisions of Sections 41-5-	11
13 and 37-1-10, and because our reasoning applies equally to both, we do not	12
separately analyze each statute.	13
IV. 	Legislative Intent	14
{12} 	“When construing statutes, our guiding principle is to determine and give	15
effect to legislative intent.” El Paso Elec. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Regul. Comm’n, 2010-	16
NMSC-048, ¶ 7, 149 N.M. 174, 246 P.3d 443 (internal quotation marks and citation	17
omitted); accord Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010-NMSC-051, ¶ 15, 149 N.M. 162,	18
245 P.3d 1214 (“This Court’s primary goal when interpreting statutes is to further	19
legislative intent.”). We “us[e] the plain language of the statute as the primary	20

7
indicator of legislative intent.” State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037, ¶ 9, 146 N.M. 481,	1
212 P.3d 369 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). However,	2
“[i]f the plain meaning of the statute is doubtful, ambiguous, or if an adherence to	3
the literal use of the words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, we	4
will construe the statute according to its obvious spirit or reason.” Id. (alteration,	5
internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).	6
{13} 	We start with the plain language. As discussed, Defendants contend the plain	7
language of Sections 37-1-8, -10 and 41-5-13 provides no exception to the three-	8
year limitation for a parent’s loss of consortium claim so that the language of these	9
statutes is unambiguous. In contrast, Parents argue both that the statutory text is	10
ambiguous and that absurd and unjust results would ensue from Defendant’s plain	11
meaning interpretation.	12
{14} 	If we were to examine the text of Sections 37-1-8, -10, and 41-5-13 in	13
isolation, Defendants’ strict construction argument might be persuasive. We,	14
however, do not believe it is appropriate to take such a view of the statutory text	15
given the circumstances in this case. Our Legislature last amended Section 37-1-10	16
in 1975 and Section 37-1-8 in 1976, and enacted Section 41-5-13 in 1976. Loss of	17
consortium claims, however, were not recognized until 1994. See Romero v. Byers,	18
1994-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 13, 24, 117 N.M. 422, 872 P.2d 840 (recognizing a claim for	19
loss of spousal consortium). It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the	20

8
Legislature did not intentionally fail to address loss of consortium claims in these	1
statutes. See Wilschinsky v. Medina, 1989-NMSC-047, ¶ 25, 108 N.M. 511, 775 P.2d	2
713 (“[A] specific cause of action [later] recognized by [our Supreme Court] did not	3
exist in 1976. Therefore, the [L]egislature did not intentionally fail to address this	4
issue.”). Moreover, as we later discuss, we agree with Parents that Defendants’	5
construction would lead to illogical and unjust results that the Legislature did not	6
intend. See State v. Bennett, 2003-NMCA-147, ¶ 10, 134 N.M. 705, 82 P.3d 72	7
(departing from the plain meaning to avoid “an absurdity that the [L]egislature could	8
not have intended” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly,	9
we look beyond the plain meaning of the statutory text to discern legislative intent.	10
See id.; Wilschinsky, 1989-NMSC-047, ¶ 26.	11
A. 	Purpose of the MMA	12
{15} 	In support of its interpretation of the language of Section 41-5-13 in particular,	13
Defendant Driskill points out that the Legislature enacted the MMA to limit the	14
liability of health care providers, and contends that expanding its minority tolling	15
provision would undermine this purpose. See § 41-5-2 (1976) (repealed 2022).3
16
(“The purpose of the [MMA] is to promote the health and welfare of the people of	17
3We are aware of the 2021 amendments to the MMA, including the repeal of
Section 41-5-2, which took effect on January 1, 2022. However, as we previously
noted, we rely on the law in effect prior to the 2021 Legislative session.

9
New Mexico by making available professional liability insurance for health care	1
providers in New Mexico.”). We are unpersuaded.	2
{16} 	The MMA’s purpose was not solely to limit the liability of qualified health	3
care providers. See § 41-5-2; Montaño v. Frezza, 2017-NMSC-015, ¶ 32, 393 P.3d	4
700 (noting one purpose of the MMA as promoting the health and welfare of the	5
people of New Mexico by ensuring “that individuals receive adequate compensation	6
for injuries caused by medical negligence”); Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043,	7
¶¶ 17, 19, 309 P.3d 1047 (describing that the MMA created a “balanced scheme” to	8
encourage health care providers to opt into the MMA by balancing benefits to	9
providers and patients, and listing the benefits to patients). Moreover, expanding	10
Section 41-5-13’s minority tolling provision leaves unchanged many of the MMA’s	11
most significant limitations on the liability of qualified health care providers: the	12
$200,000 personal liability limit; the $600,000 cap on damages; and the requirement	13
that plaintiffs submit malpractice claims to the medical review commission for	14
permission to sue the provider in district court. See id. ¶ 18 (reviewing the MMA’s	15
benefits to qualified health care providers). Finally, as we discuss below, expanding	16
Section 41-5-13’s minority tolling provision protects qualified health care providers	17
from exposure to multiple lawsuits based on the same conduct. Accordingly, we	18
conclude that tolling a parent’s claim for loss of consortium alongside the minor’s	19

10
medical malpractice claim does not undermine the MMA’s benefits for qualified	1
health care providers, nor is it contrary to the purpose of the MMA.	2
B. 	Canons of Strict Construction	3
{17} 	Defendants 	next 	urge 	us 	to 	apply 	the 	principle 	of 	strictly 	construing	4
exceptions to limitation periods. See Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. Armijo, 1985-	5
NMSC-057, ¶ 5, 103 N.M. 174, 704 P.2d 428 (“Generally the right of action is	6
favored over the right of limitation. Exceptions, however, to statutes of limitations	7
are strictly construed in New Mexico.”). Defendants contend that the Legislature	8
must be presumed to have been aware of this longstanding principle of strict	9
construction when it enacted the statutes at issue, and that we should follow our	10
precedent applying this principle. See Moncor Tr. Co., 1987-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 8, 13,	11
16 (noting the principle of strictly construing exceptions to statutes of limitations	12
and concluding that Section 41-5-13’s minority tolling provision “appl[ied] only to	13
minors who suffer an alleged act of malpractice and not to minors who are	14
beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act” in part because “minority disability	15
saving a person from the operation of the statute of limitations is a personal privilege	16
limited to the minor under the disability only and cannot confer rights on other	17
persons asserting actions”); accord Armijo v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 1984-	18
NMCA-118, ¶¶ 1-2, 15, 103 N.M. 183, 704 P.2d 437 (concluding that a parent’s	19
individual claims for pain and suffering and loss of companionship could not be	20

11
“tacked on to the claims of the infant, thereby avoiding the operation of the two-year	1
limitation period [under the Tort Claims Act]” because “[a] disability, such as	2
minority, which saves one from the operation of a limitation statute is a personal	3
privilege of the person under the disability only”), rev’d in part on other grounds,	4
1985-NMSC-057, ¶ 1. We acknowledge Moncor Tr. Co., 1987-NMCA-015, and	5
Armijo, 1984-NMCA-118, suggest that the minority tolling provisions at issue do	6
not inure to the benefit of Parents’ loss of consortium claim. In light of later	7
precedent 	regarding 	loss 	of 	consortium 	claims, 	however, 	we 	conclude 	these	8
authorities are not controlling.	9
{18} 	As an initial matter, precedent defining loss of consortium claims did not exist	10
when Moncor Tr. Co. and Armijo were decided because loss of consortium was not	11
yet recognized as a cause of action. Further, we conclude that strictly construing the	12
minority tolling provisions at issue, as Moncor Tr. Co. and Armijo suggest, would	13
be inconsistent with this later-developed precedent regarding loss of consortium.4
14
Specifically, as we explain, refusing to extend the minority tolling provisions at issue	15
4Insofar as Defendant Driskill argues that the Legislature’s inaction in the face
of this later development in loss of consortium law is evidence of legislative intent
to adopt its reading of the MMA’s minority tolling provision, we are unpersuaded.
See Garcia v. Schneider, Inc., 1986-NMCA-127, ¶ 11, 105 N.M. 234, 731 P.2d 377
(“While a number of decisions have held that legislative inaction following a judicial
interpretation of a statute affords some evidence that the [L]egislature intends to
adopt the interpretation, legislative inaction has been called a weak reed upon which
to lean and a poor beacon to follow in construing a statute.” (alteration, internal
quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

12
to a parent’s loss of consortium claim in a medical malpractice case would lead to	1
multiple lawsuits and the possibility for inconsistent decisions, contrary to our	2
precedent requiring joinder of a parent’s loss of consortium claim with the child’s	3
negligence action and at odds with the policies underlying this joinder requirement.5
4
C. 	Subsequent Development of Loss of Consortium Law	5
{19} 	In Fernandez v. Walgreen Hastings Co., our Supreme Court followed other	6
jurisdictions in “requiring joinder of a parent’s or grandparent’s loss of consortium	7
claim with the child’s negligence action.” 1998-NMSC-039, ¶ 28, 126 N.M. 263,	8
968 P.2d 774 (emphasis added). The policy underlying the adoption of this joinder	9
requirement was to prevent increased litigation and multiple claims that would	10
otherwise result from filing a parent’s or grandparent’s loss of consortium claim	11
separately from the child’s underlying negligence action. See id. (“[The d]efendant’s	12
argument that recognition of a grandparents’ claim for loss of consortium would lead	13
to increased litigation and multiple claims is . . . easily solved by requiring joinder	14
of [these claims].”).	15
{20} 	In support of its decision to follow other jurisdictions in adopting this joinder	16
requirement, the Fernandez court cited the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision	17
Shockley v. Prier, which likewise required “that the parent’s [loss of consortium	18
5To the extent language in Moncor Tr. Co., 1987-NMCA-015, and Armijo,
1984-NMCA-118, conflicts with our decision, those cases are no longer good law.

13
claim be] combined with that of the child for the child’s personal injuries.” 225	1
N.W.2d 495, 501 (Wis. 1975). Relying on Shockley’s requirement that a parent’s	2
loss of consortium claim be combined with the child’s injury claim, the Wisconsin	3
Supreme Court went on to decide the issue we face today in Korth ex rel. Lukas v.	4
Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 340 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. 1983). We find the Wisconsin Supreme	5
Court’s reasoning in Korth to be consistent with our precedent requiring joinder and	6
therefore persuasive.	7
{21} 	In Korth, an injured minor and her parents filed suit after the three-year statute	8
of limitations for personal injuries had expired but during the child’s minority. Id. at	9
495. 	Construing 	a 	substantially 	similar 	limitations 	provision, 	the 	Wisconsin	10
Supreme Court concluded that since the parents’ claim for loss of society and	11
companionship and medical expenses was filed along with the minor’s claims, the	12
parents’ claim was also entitled to the benefit of the statute tolling the period for	13
filing the minor’s claims. See id. In so concluding, the court relied on its precedent	14
from Shockley 	requiring the parent’s cause of action for loss of society and	15
companionship to be brought in the same action as that of the minor’s claim for	16
personal injuries. See id. at 496-97. The court highlighted the policies underlying	17
Shockley’s joinder requirement: protecting defendants from multiple litigation and	18
inconsistent judgments, and protecting the public’s interest in the prompt, complete	19
and efficient settlement of controversies in one proceeding. Id. at 496. The court	20

14
reasoned that applying the minor tolling provision to loss of consortium claims	1
would encourage these policies underlying the joinder requirement and allow the	2
minor or the minor’s representative the benefits of a longer limitations period. See	3
id. at 497.	4
{22} 	The Korth court also reasoned that allowing the parents’ claims to be filed	5
during the period available to the minor applied a “fair and reasonable construction”	6
to the statutes at issue. Id. While the court noted “statutes creating limitations . . .	7
should not be extended by judicial construction,” id. (alteration omitted), it stated	8
that were it to hold otherwise, its joinder requirement would mean that parents	9
bringing a claim for loss of society and companionship would “of necessity” be	10
forced to initiate the minor’s claim within the general three-year limitations period,	11
despite the minor tolling provision. Id. Finally, the court noted that granting parents	12
the benefit of the minor tolling provision would not unduly burden defendants since	13
they would have had to preserve evidence or maintain their readiness to defend the	14
minor’s claim. Id.	15
{23} 	We likewise find persuasive a more recent case from the Rhode Island	16
Supreme Court addressing whether that state’s statute of limitations applicable to a	17
minor’s medical malpractice claim inured to the benefit of a parent’s loss of	18
consortium claim. See Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hosp., 115 A.3d 938, 940, 951 (R.I.	19
2015). In Ho-Rath, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that “a parent’s claim	20

15
for loss of consortium in a medical malpractice case should be tolled alongside the	1
minor’s claim from which it is derived.” Id. at 950. In so concluding, the court relied	2
on its precedent establishing that the parents’ loss of consortium claims “must be	3
joined with the child’s claims if it is feasible to do so.” Id. The court reasoned that	4
“[t]he sound rationale for this joinder rule is to prevent duplicative litigation,	5
multiple recoveries, and inconsistent results.” Id.	6
{24} 	We find the reasoning from Wisconsin and Rhode Island supportive of the	7
conclusion that a parent’s claim for loss of consortium in a medical malpractice case	8
is tolled alongside the minor’s claim, pursuant to the minority tolling provisions at	9
issue. This conclusion is consistent with our precedent “requiring joinder of a	10
parent’s . . . loss of consortium claim with the child’s negligence action,” and the	11
policies underlying this precedent: protecting individuals from the burden of	12
litigating multiple lawsuits, promoting judicial economy, and minimizing the	13
possibility of inconsistent decisions. Fernandez, 1998-NMSC-039, ¶ 28; see id.	14
(adopting the joinder requirement to prevent “increased litigation and multiple	15
claims” that would result from filing a parent’s or grandparent’s derivative loss of	16
consortium claims separately from the child’s negligence action); see also Rule 1-	17
019(A)(2)(b) NMRA (mandating, if feasible, joinder of a party claiming an interest	18
relating to the subject of the action when his or her absence would “leave any of the	19
persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or	20

16
otherwise inconsistent obligations”). In our view, this conclusion provides fairness	1
to the parties—to the defendants by reducing multiple lawsuits and to the plaintiffs	2
by ensuring that they are not foreclosed from bringing meritorious claims—and,	3
importantly, promotes the policies of the MMA and the minority tolling provisions.	4
{25} 	Were we to conclude otherwise, a parent would need to bring his or her loss	5
of consortium claim within the applicable three-year limitations period, yet—	6
pursuant to the minority tolling provisions at issue—a minor’s malpractice claim	7
could go forward separately years later. Such a scenario would increase the	8
possibility of inconsistent decisions given that “a plaintiff who sues for loss of	9
consortium damages must prove—as an element of loss of consortium damages—	10
that the alleged tortfeasor caused the wrongful injury or death of someone who was	11
in a sufficiently close relationship to the plaintiff.” Thompson, 2017-NMSC-021,	12
¶ 14.	13
{26} 	We acknowledge that Fernandez’s joinder requirement could in theory be	14
upheld without extending the minority tolling provisions at issue to a parent’s loss	15
of consortium claim by obligating the minor’s claim to be brought together with the	16
parent’s claim within the general three year limitations period. But requiring the	17
minor to bring their claim within the general limitations period would render	18
superfluous the minority tolling provisions at issue. See Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. &	19
Mun. Emps. v. City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-063, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 443 (“Statutes	20

17
must . . . be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or	1
superfluous.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).	2
{27} 	Moreover, extending the minority tolling provisions at issue to a parent’s loss	3
of consortium claim is consistent with New Mexico’s “long tradition of interpreting	4
laws carefully to safeguard minors.” Rider v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 1996-NMCA-	5
090, ¶ 13, 122 N.M. 237, 923 P.2d 604; see also Gomez, 2009-NMCA-035, ¶ 10	6
(“The intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 37-1-10 was to give minors a	7
reasonable period of time after reaching majority within which to file an action.”).	8
Otherwise, a parent might feel compelled by Fernandez’s joinder requirement to	9
bring the minor’s claim within the general three-year limitations period to preserve	10
the parent’s derivative loss of consortium claim.6 Accord Korth, 340 N.W.2d 494 at	11
497 (noting that, in light of its joinder requirement, were it to hold that the minor	12
tolling provision at issue did not inure to the parents’ benefit, parents claiming loss	13
of society and companionship would “of necessity” be forced to initiate the minor’s	14
claim within the general three-year limitations period). Such a scenario would	15
frustrate rather than facilitate the purposes of minority tolling provisions. See	16
6 Defendants point out that the district court has the power to stay loss of
consortium claims in cases in which the claimant knows he or she has a claim but
does 	not 	yet 	know 	the 	full 	extent 	of 	his 	or 	her 	damages. 	See 	Belser 	v.
O’Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3, 137 N.M. 623, 114 P.3d 303 (stating that “a
district court has the discretion to grant and lift a stay of proceedings[]” as part of
the court’s “inherent authority . . . to manage the cases before it”). We view this
discretionary power as insufficient in light of Fernandez’s joinder requirement.

18
Regents, 1985-NMSC-057, ¶ 7 (“Minority savings clauses are enacted to allow time	1
for the full scope of a child’s injury to become apparent, to enable the child to	2
become competent to testify, or to allow the child to act for himself after the	3
disability has been removed.”); In re Portal, 2002-NMSC-011, ¶ 5, 132 N.M. 171,	4
45 P.3d 891 (“Statutes are to be read in a way that facilitates their operation and the	5
achievement of their goals.” (internal quotations marks and citation omitted)).	6
{28} 	Defendants disagree about the scope of Fernandez’s joinder requirement,	7
arguing that a parent’s loss of consortium claim need not be joined with a child’s	8
medical malpractice claim. Defendants contend Parents’ reliance on Fernandez’s	9
joinder requirement ignores Thompson, which allows loss of consortium claims to	10
be brought separately from the underlying injury claim. We do not agree that	11
Thompson is controlling under the circumstances of this case, or that it conflicts with	12
the joinder requirement set forth in Fernandez.	13
{29} 	In Thompson, a parent was killed, but the parent’s estate did not sue for	14
wrongful death damages. 2017-NMSC-021, ¶ 1. The plaintiffs, parent’s minor	15
children, sued for loss of consortium damages under the New Mexico Tort Claims	16
Act. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. The relevant issue before our Supreme Court was: “May the minor	17
children of a parent whom they allege was wrongfully shot and killed by a law	18
enforcement officer . . . bring their lawsuit [for loss of consortium damages] even if	19
the parent’s estate did not sue for wrongful death damages?” Id. ¶ 1.	20

19
{30} 	The Court held that the “[p]laintiffs in this case may bring the claim for loss	1
of consortium damages independent of the underlying battery claim.” Id. ¶ 18. The	2
Court reasoned that “claims for loss of consortium damages are independent,” and	3
stated that “[a]lthough claims for loss of consortium damages derive from injury to	4
another, the claimant has also suffered a direct injury for which he or she may seek	5
recovery separately from the underlying tort.” Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. “The direct injury	6
alleged by a loss of consortium claimant is one to a relational interest with another	7
who was physically injured.” Id. ¶ 16. Thus, the Court stated, “A derivative claim	8
for loss of consortium damages need not be brought along with the underlying tort	9
claim because loss of consortium claimants suffer a direct injury separate from the	10
physical injury to another.” Id. ¶ 17.	11
{31} 	We do not view Thompson’s holding or reasoning as altering Fernandez’s	12
joinder requirement or foreclosing its application in the present case. Fernandez’s	13
joinder requirement is necessarily limited to instances in which a loss of consortium	14
claim is brought along with the claim for the underlying tort injury. See Fernandez,	15
1998-NMSC-039, ¶ 28 (citing Ueland v. Reynolds Metals Co., 691 P.2d 190, 193-	16
94 (Wash. 1984) (en banc)), for the proposition that a “child’s claim for loss of	17
consortium of parent [must] be joined with [a] parent’s underlying claim whenever	18
possible.” (emphasis added)). In Thompson, by contrast, the underlying tort action	19
was never pursued. 2017-NMSC-021, ¶ 1. Thompson’s holding does not address the	20

20
scenario contemplated in Fernandez, and at issue here, in which both the loss of	1
consortium claim and the underlying tort action were brought. And although “a	2
minor child c[an] pursue a claim for loss of consortium damages separate from an	3
underlying wrongful death claim,” Id. ¶ 17 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.	4
Luebbers, 2005-NMCA-112, ¶ 37, 138 N.M. 289, 119 P.3d 169), neither Fernandez	5
nor this case presents such a scenario.	6
CONCLUSION	7
{32} 	In sum, we conclude—based on our construction of the applicable statutes, in	8
view of our precedent requiring joinder of a parent’s loss of consortium claim with	9
the child’s negligence action and the policies inherent in that precedent, and our long	10
tradition of interpreting laws carefully to safeguard minors—that a parent’s claim	11
for loss of consortium in a medical malpractice case is tolled alongside the minor’s	12
claim from which it is derived, pursuant to the minority tolling provisions of Sections	13
41-5-13 and 37-1-10.	14
{33} 	For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the dismissal of Parents’ loss of	15
consortium claim and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with	16
this opinion.	17

21
{34} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	1
____________________________	2
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	3
WE CONCUR:	4
________________________________	5
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	6
________________________________	7
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	8