AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment against the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions. The dispute arose from a letter dated September 1, 2020, in which the Defendant allegedly determined that the Plaintiff had committed fraud and required repayment of $21,828.25 before being eligible for unemployment insurance benefits (paras 1 and 3).

Procedural History

• District Court, Santa Fe County: Denied the Plaintiff's verified petition for writ of mandamus, injunction, and complaint for declaratory judgment (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that he could not file an administrative appeal with the Defendant because the relevant statute only allows appeals of determinations regarding eligibility or disqualification for benefits, not fraud determinations (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellee: Supported the proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal as required by regulation 11.3.500.8(A) NMAC (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff was required to file an administrative appeal with the Defendant under 11.3.500.8(A) NMAC.
• Whether the September 1, 2020, letter constituted a determination that required an appeal to the appeal tribunal (paras 2 and 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying the Plaintiff's petition (para 5).

Reasons

Per Attrep CJ. (Hanisee and Yohalem JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal with the Defendant as required by 11.3.500.8(A) NMAC, which allows any aggrieved party to appeal a determination by the department within fifteen days. The Plaintiff's argument that the statute did not provide a mechanism for appealing fraud determinations was unpersuasive, as the regulation contains no such limitations. The September 1, 2020, letter was deemed a determination that needed to be appealed within the specified timeframe (paras 2-4).