OPINION: Patients don't need fewer rights to get more care

As a fellow New Mexican, I share former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish’s frustration with long waits, provider shortages and gaps in access to care. Where I part ways with her is the notion that capping punitive damages in medical malpractice cases is either patient-driven or patient-protective. It isn’t.

Let’s be clear about what punitive damages are and are not. They are not automatic. They are not awarded in most cases. And they are not compensation for medical bills or pain and suffering. Punitive damages exist for one reason only: to punish and deter truly reckless, egregious conduct. When they are awarded, it is because a jury after hearing all the evidence concluded that ordinary accountability was not enough.

Denish knows this all too well. In 2023, she brought a wrongful death lawsuit in Santa Fe against multiple parties after her husband died. My husband died as well because of medical malpractice. Denish received the compensation she deserved for the tragic death of her husband, and now she’s trying to block it for other victims.

I find it troubling that lawmakers are being asked to decide, in advance and as a matter of policy, that no matter how outrageous the conduct, there must be a ceiling on consequences. That is not reform. That is immunity by statute.

Supporters of caps repeatedly argue that malpractice attorneys “almost automatically” file punitive claims to scare doctors. What goes unmentioned is that judges routinely dismiss punitive claims that lack merit. The legal system already has safeguards. If frivolous claims were truly the problem, the solution would be enforcement, not stripping patients of leverage when harm is real and severe.

The uncomfortable truth is that access problems are driven by many factors: underfunded rural health systems, workforce burnout, reimbursement rates and a lack of residency slots — not runaway jury awards. Even states with far stricter malpractice limits struggle with provider shortages. Caps make a convenient talking point, but they are not a proven solution.

As someone who’s been the victim of medical malpractice, I also reject the framing that this debate pits patients against doctors. Accountability does not drive good physicians away; it protects the trust that good medicine depends on. Most doctors never face a malpractice claim, let alone punitive damages. But for the rare cases involving repeated negligence, falsified records, or willful disregard for patient safety, consequences matter, not just for the injured patient, but for future ones.

Finally, invoking patients while weakening patient protections feels backward. Patients do not line up asking for fewer legal rights. We ask for competent care, transparency when things go wrong, and a system that learns from its worst failures instead of shielding them.

If lawmakers want to help patients, they should invest in training, retention, rural infrastructure and oversight, not preemptively limit justice for those most seriously harmed.

Access to care and accountability are not competing values. A system that demands excellence is one that patients and good doctors can trust.

Aleta Suazo is a board member of New Mexico Safety Over Profit. 

Editor's note: Diane Denish told the Journal she filed a wrongful death automobile liability lawsuit after her husband's death, not a medical malpractice case. The complaint sought compensatory, not punitive, damages.