This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A worker sought workers' compensation benefits from Albuquerque Public Schools, claiming entitlement to an independent medical examination (IME) to support his case. The worker argued that the employer should bear the cost of obtaining expert medical testimony. The worker experienced improvement after receiving antibiotics in Spain and questioned the expertise of Dr. Jones, who was not an expert in infectious diseases (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration: Denied the worker's application for an independent medical examination (IME) (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker-Appellant: Argued that the legislature did not intend for workers to bear the financial costs of obtaining expert medical testimony and that the employer should pay for the IME. Asserted that there were sufficient reasons to order an IME, including improvement after treatment in Spain and questioning Dr. Jones's expertise (paras 2-4).
- Employer/Insurer-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the worker's application for an independent medical examination (IME)?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the worker's application for an IME (para 5).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Henderson and Baca JJ. concurring): The court found that the plain language of Section 52-1-51(B) supports the worker's assertion that the employer should pay for an IME if the worker is entitled to it. However, the worker failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the IME application. The court emphasized that its role was to determine if there was an abuse of discretion, not to reassess the facts as the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) would. The worker's additional factual assertions were not preserved or presented as evidence before the WCJ, and thus did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The court also noted that the worker's argument regarding the inadmissibility of testimony from a provider paid out of pocket did not show an abuse of discretion (paras 2-5).