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 was injured in July 2001 while employed by the employer when he was forced to jump from a mechanical sweeper due to a transmission failure. The worker filed claims under the Workers’ Compensation Administration Act (WCAA), culminating in a dispute over the effective date of his change in disability status, which was inconsistently recorded in a Recommended Resolution as November 30, 2001, and November 30, 2004 (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Judge, January 2, 2007: The judge granted the worker’s application to modify the Recommended Resolution due to clerical error and referred the matter to mediation to resolve the inconsistency (para 11).
- Court of Appeals, May 29, 2007: The court reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision, holding that the Recommended Resolution was conclusively binding and could not be modified (para 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker: Argued that the Recommended Resolution was ambiguous due to conflicting dates and sought enforcement and modification of the resolution under Section 52-5-9 of the WCAA, which allows for review based on clerical error (paras 8, 23).
- Employer: Contended that the worker’s application was untimely under Section 52-5-5(C) of the WCAA, which imposes a 30-day time limit for rejecting or modifying a Recommended Resolution, and relied on prior case law to argue that the resolution was binding despite the error (paras 8, 14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the worker’s application to modify the Recommended Resolution was governed by the 30-day time limit under Section 52-5-5(C) of the WCAA.
- Whether the clerical error in the Recommended Resolution constituted a valid ground for review and modification under Section 52-5-9 of the WCAA.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order referring the matter to mediation (para 28).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Chávez, Serna, Maes, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
The court held that Section 52-5-5(C) applies only to the rejection or withdrawal of acceptance of a Recommended Resolution within 30 days and does not govern applications to modify a binding compensation order. The worker’s application was instead governed by Section 52-5-9, which allows for review and modification of compensation orders within two years based on clerical error or mistake. The court overruled prior case law, including Medina v. Hunemuller Construction, Inc., to the extent it conflicted with this interpretation. The clerical error in the Recommended Resolution created an ambiguity that justified review and modification under Section 52-5-9. The court emphasized that ignoring the error would undermine the purposes of the WCAA, which seeks to balance the rights of both employers and employees (paras 16-27).