(Reuters) - New Mexico's highest court has upheld the state's $600,000 cap on non-medical, non-punitive damages in medical malpractice cases, finding the cap does not violate the right to trial by jury.

The Monday ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court means that a $2.6 million verdict in favor of a woman over injuries she suffered during a gynecological procedure will be reduced to about $1.54 million, which includes both the capped non-medical damages and more than $900,000 in medical expenses.

Lisa Curtis of Curtis & Co, a lawyer for the plaintiff, Susan Siebert, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did William Slattery of Hinkle Shanor, a lawyer for doctor Rebecca Okun and her employer, Women's Specialists of New Mexico.

Many states have laws capping damages in certain personal injury cases. Most legal challenges against such laws have failed.

The New Mexico law in question caps non-medical, non-punitive damages - such as pain and suffering and lost wages - at $600,000, and limits practitioners' personal liability to $200,000. To benefit from the law's protection, healthcare providers must pay into a patient benefit fund.

Siebert suffered perforations in her uterus and intestine after a hysteroscopy performed by Okun in 2011, and subsequently sued under the New Medico malpractice law, according to Monday's decision.

A jury awarded $2.6 million in total damages, without breaking the total down into different categories of damages. The defendants moved to reduce the award to $1.54 million, arguing that the jury had been instructed that Siebert's actual medical costs had been $935,916.15 and the statutory cap applied to any amount beyond that.

Siebert argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the right to a trial by jury, since the damages award was effectively decided by the legislature and not the jury.

The trial judge agreed, and the defendants appealed. New Mexico's Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court.

Justice Barbara Vigil, writing the unanimous opinion, reversed, saying limits on jury verdicts did not harm the fundamental right.

"We conclude that an inviolate right is not beyond the reach of regulation, so long as that regulation does not substantially impair the core essence of the right," she said.

Vigil said that since the colonial period, the jury's role has become narrower.

"Our historical analysis of the evolving role of the jury reveals that though the jury may once have exercised an ability to shape the legal as well as factual resolutions in a civil case, by the time the New Mexico Constitution took effect in 1912, the jury's role was limited to that of fact-finder," she wrote. "Based on this analysis, we conclude that the right to trial by jury is satisfied when evidence is presented to a jury, which then deliberates and returns a verdict based on its factual findings. The legal consequence of that verdict is a matter of law, which the Legislature has the authority to shape."

The case is Siebert v. Okun et al, Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, No. S-1-SC-37231.

For Siebert: Lisa Curtis of Curtis & Co

For Okun: William Slattery of Hinkle Shanor