NICHOLS V. TELEDYNE ECONOMIC DEV. CO., 1985-NMCA-092,
103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203 (Ct. App. 1985)
RANDOL NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
TELEDYNE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Employer, and
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer,
Defendants-Appellees.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
1985-NMCA-092, 103 N.M. 393, 707 P.2d 1203
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BERNALILLO COUNTY, Frederick M. Mowrer, Judge
Catherine Gordon, Duhigg & Cronin,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Sarah M. Bradley, Bradley &
McCulloch, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.
Wood, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR:
WILLIAM W. BIVINS, Judge, LORENZO F. GARCIA, Judge
{1} Plaintiff's claim for
worker's compensation benefits was settled. The claim for vocational
rehabilitation benefits was excluded from the settlement and submitted to the
trial court for decision. The trial court denied rehabilitation benefits.
Plaintiff appealed. This court proposed summary affirmance of the trial court.
Plaintiff has timely opposed summary affirmance;
{*394}
his memorandum makes two arguments: (1) that he is unable to return to his
former job and, thus, is entitled to rehabilitation benefits; and (2) the
remedial policy of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the interest in
rehabilitation of workers requires a liberal policy in the award of
rehabilitation benefits.
{2} NMSA 1978, Section
52-1-50 (Cum. Supp.1984) provides that a worker "shall be entitled to such
vocational rehabilitation services... as may be necessary to restore him to
suitable employment where he is unable to return to his former job. The court
shall determine whether a disabled employee needs vocational rehabilitation
services * * *."
{3} The parties stipulated,
and the trial court found, that plaintiff was unable to return to his former
work as a security guard. Plaintiff's claim, that because he cannot return to
his former job an award of rehabilitation benefits is required, ignores the
above-quoted statutory language. The trial court must determine the need for
the rehabilitation benefits and the need depends on whether the benefits are
necessary to restore the worker to suitable employment. We any not ignore the
statutory language to effect a policy not covered by the statute.
Lent v.
Employment Security Commission of the State of New Mexico, 99 N.M. 407,
658
P.2d 1134 (Ct. App. 1982);
Newhoff v. Good Housekeeping, Inc., 94 N.M.
621,
614 P.2d 33 (Ct. App.1980),
affirmed in
Hise Construction v.
Candelaria, 98 N.M. 759,
652 P.2d 1210 (1982). Plaintiff contends the
statutory language is mandatory. Our answer is that rehabilitation benefits
"necessary to restore him [the worker] to suitable employment" is
part of the mandatory language.
Ruiz v. City of Albuquerque, 91 N.M.
526,
577 P.2d 424 (Ct. App.1978).
{4} Plaintiff had the burden
of establishing the need for rehabilitation benefits.
Garcia v. Albuquerque
Public Schools, 99 N.M. 741,
663 P.2d 1198 (Ct. App.1983). The trial court
found:
5. That at the time of the accident plaintiff was earning
approximately $700 per month gross.
6. That plaintiff and wife now are co-managers of a
condominium complex in Los Alamos, New Mexico. They recieve [sic] [receive]
wages of $1,250 per month, and are furnished a rent free apartment valued at
$500 per month for a total compensation of $1,750 for their services.
7. That plaintiff's current employment includes overseeing
maintenance, some bookkeeping and other matters in regard to the business of
the complex.
8. That plaintiff appears to have job security.
{5} Plaintiff is not in a
position to complain of these findings of the trial court, which are based on
plaintiff's own requested findings. See Platero v. Jones, 83 N.M. 261,
490 P.2d 1234 (Ct. App.1971). Plaintiff does not complain of these findings.
His theory, revealed in another requested finding, is that he seeks
rehabilitation benefits in order to obtain an associate's degree in business
management.
Plaintiff believes that additional education will benefit him
directly as follows: he will receive additional wages; he will be better able
to perform his duties as manager of Ridge Park Village Condominiums; and he
will significantly enhance his opportunities for advancement within the Mac
Davis Corporation in the future.
The statute does not provide for rehabilitation benefits for
these reasons; the statute requires a need for rehabilitation benefits. The
trial court's findings are to the effect that there is no need for
rehabilitation benefits. The trial court properly denied the request for
rehabilitation benefits under the facts of this case.
{6} The order denying the
motion for rehabilitation benefits is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: WILLIAM W. BIVINS, Judge, LORENZO F. GARCIA, Judge